Information To Users

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter free, while others may be
from any type o f computer printer.
The quality o f this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UM I a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back o f the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6 x 9 black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS
REGARDING THE WEST VIRGINIA
MANDATED PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF TEACHERS
DISSERTATION
Submitted to the School of Education
Department of Educational Leadership
of
West Virginia University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree of Doctor of Education
by
Sarah Lee Brown
Morgantown
West Virginia
1997
UMI Number: 9727667
Copyright 1997 by
Brown, Sarah Lee
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 9727667

Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
c COPYRIGHT 1997
in
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare
perceptions of principals and teachers concerning the West
Virginia mandated performance evaluation of teachers. A
comparison was made of principals' and teachers' perceived
current and desired evaluation practice. Then a comparison was
made between principals and teachers to find any differences in
perceptions. Efforts were made to find relationships between
overall satisfaction and evaluation practices and between overall
satisfaction and demographic variables. Both groups were asked why
teachers do not choose to enter the Phase I/II professional growth
and development cycle.
Surveys were mailed to 218 principals and 270 teachers,
randomly selected from the population of public school principals
and teachers by staff from the West Virginia Department of
Education. A response rate of 57% was obtained. Data were analyzed
using general linear models procedures.
Differences were found in both principals' and teachers'
perceptions of current and desired practices in evaluation on all
factors investigated. Differences were found between perceptions
of principals and teachers concerning desired practice on all
factors investigated except career awards, opportunity to
participate, and evaluator competency. Differences were found
between perceptions of principals and teachers concerning
perceived current practices on all factors investigated. For
iv
principals and teachers significant correlation was found between
overall satisfaction and positive effect on instruction. For
teachers there was also a significant correlation between overall
satisfaction and benefit to professional growth. No significant
differences were found in overall satisfaction as predicted by
demographic factors. Reasons for not entering Phase I/II of the
professional growth and development cycle included among others:
rather have evaluator observe, lack of understanding or training,
to much paperwork, and fear of portfolio.
The results of this study indicated that while teachers and
principals are in agreement on desired practices in evaluation,
their perceptions of current practice are different. Additional
training in the evaluation process is need for both groups.
Efforts need to be made to connect staff development and
evaluations and to make the evaluations beneficial to improved
instruction and encouraging quality performance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special appreciation to:
Dr. JoAnn Hall, Dr. Ron Childress, Dr. Ken Young, Dr. Sandra Bailey, and my
chair, Dr. Powell Toth. It was with the continued support, encouragement,
and advisement o f this committee that the completion o f this study was
possible;
Debbie Wood and Char Allen for helping me to keep all of the paperwork in
order,
Those principals and teachers who responded to my surveys;
Carolyn Thompson for her concern, motivation, and frequent tides to Charleston
and Huntington;
Buster Brown for being a great chauffeur,
My sister, Reva Holder, and her husband Freeman, who encouraged me to do my

best;
My mother, Glenna Coleman, who has been my cook and housekeeper for
the last ten years, and my source o f motivation since childhood;

My husband and best friend, Roger, who promised my dad in 1974 that he would
send me to college if I were allowed to marry him;
My Heavenly Father who makes all things possible.
I dedicate this work to the memory o f my dad who passed away in November,
1993. He set the example and encouraged me to pursue my goals.
vi
Table o f Contents
Page
List o f Tables...........................................................................................................ix
Chapter
One: Introduction................................................................................................ 1
Background................................................................................................ 2
West Virginia Teacher Evaluation............................................................10
Statement of the Problem and Research Questions................................. 14
Significance.............................................................................................. 18
Definition of Terms.................................................................................21
Assumptions.............................................................................................23
Limitations............................................................................................... 24
Two: Review o f the Literature......................................................................... 25
History of Teacher Evaluation................................................................25
Legislation...............................................................................................29
Perceptions o f Teacher Evaluation......................................................... 31

Independent Variables............................................................................ 33
Competency o f Evaluator........................................................................ 34
Training for Evaluator and Evaluatee...................................................... 35
Understanding o f Goals and Opportunity for Input................................36
Improved Instruction...............................................................................40
Emotional Pressures................................................................................42
Value to Professional Growth and Staff Development.......................... 44
Methods o f Evaluation........................................................................... 46
West Virginia Teacher Evaluation System..............................................54
vii
Three: Methodology..........................................................................................62
Development of Research Questions.................................................... 62
Population and Sample.......................................................................... 63

Research Design................................................................................... 63
Instrumentation......................................................................................65
Procedures............................................................................................ 66
Data Analysis........................................................................................66
Four: Presentation of Data............................................................................. 70
Introduction..........................................................................................70
Demographic Data............................................................................... 71
Gender................................................................................................. 71
Age.......................................................................................................72
Educational Level............................................................................... 73
Experience........................................................................................... 74
School LeveL.......................................................................................75
Research Question 1........................................................................... 76

viii
Five: Summary, Interpretations, and Recommendations.............................. 88
Summary..............................................................................................88
Finding?................................................................................................89
Interpretations...................................................................................... 90
Recommendations............................................................................... 97
Future Research..................................................................................99
References............................................................................................................100
Appendices...........................................................................................................110
Appendix A: West Virginia Teacher Observation/Data Form........................ I l l
Appendix B: Panel o f Experts........................................................................ 114

Appendix C: Cover Letter..............................................................................115
Appendix D: Comments from Educators....................................................... 116
Appendix E: Surveys...................................................................................... 122
Appendix F: Responses by Percentage.......................................................... 126
Signature Page...................................................................................................... 133
List of Tables
Table Page
1 Gender o f Respondents 71
2 Age o f Respondents 72
3 Educational Level o f Respondents 73
4 Years o f Experience o f Respondents 74
5 Type o f School of Respondents 75
6 ANOVA Results for Question 1 76
7 Means for Current and Desired Perceived by Principals 77
9 Means for Current and Desired Perceived by Teachers 78
11 Principals' and Teachers' Desired and Current Means 81
12 Overall Satisfation Correlation 85
13 Responses Given for Non-Participation in Phase I/II 87
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to ascertain and compare the
perceptions of public school principals and teachers as they
relate to the West Virginia state-mandated teacher performance
evaluation process. The study was conducted with a sanple of
principals and teachers from the population of all principals and
teachers in the state.
Teacher evaluation was defined by Brock (1981) as the
process by which principals gauge the efforts of the educational
plans they have implemented and refine the planning for subsequent
implementation. This gauging and refining has been considered a
most important aspect of a principal's job (Canpbell, 1987;
McNeil, 1981), but not an easy task (Koemer, 1990). Too often
there have been no guidelines for consistent evaluations
(Isenberg, 1990). Where the guidelines existed, they have been
more subjective, based upon feelings and attitudes of the
evaluator, than objective or based upon measurable situations and
circunstances (Isenberg).
In West Virginia, efforts have been made to establish a
uniform evaluation plan for teachers. This plan has been in effect
since the 1992-93 school year. To date no study has been conducted
to ascertain the perceptions of principals and teachers in
relation to the evaluation plan.
Background
In the first few decades of the twentieth century, the
criticism of casual, haphazard, and esoteric plans for evaluation
brought about a variety of efforts to improve teacher evaluation
by reforming performance appraisal plans (Castetter, 1981). Reform
efforts included federal and state civil service legislation
governing rating of personnel and helped to bring about rating
programs referred to as traditional approaches (Castetter). These
ratings consisted of appraisal of personality traits considered
necessary for an individual to perform in a certain role
(Castetter). Rewarding of performance, changing assignments,
protecting individual and organization, and validating the
selection process were considered suitable purposes for
evaluations (Bolton, 1973).
Attempting to satisfy public demand for inproved teacher
quality, state and local school districts initiated policy changes
affecting evaluation (Darling-Hamnond, 1990). Castetter (1981)
found that from 1963 to 1974 there were 73 laws enacted by state
legislatures containing approaches to accountability.
In 1983, A Nation at Risk (Superintendent of Documents)
called for salary, promotion, tenure, and retention decisions
based upon an evaluation system so that the best teachers could be
rewarded, average ones encouraged, and poorer ones either improved
or terminated. The proposal to connect personnel decisions to
evaluations led to state reform packages that demanded expanded
evaluation roles (Buser & Pace, 1988).
Castetter (1981) noted several criticisms of the earlier
evaluation plans. One of these included charges that evaluators
were not qualified (Castetter). Generally it was assumed that all
evaluators were able to assess the quality of teaching and to
conduct effective appraisal interviews, but this was not
necessarily the case, because not all were trained as evaluators
and interviewers (Haefele, 1981). Many evaluators assumed the
role of evaluator for a brief part of the year and failed to see
it as an extension of continuing relations with teachers
(Haefele). According to McGreal (1983), 80 percent of
instructional supervision has been conducted by principals who
with little or no training observed and talked to teachers because
their evaluation systems required them to do so. Buser and Pace
(1988) reported that principals have been inadequately prepared
for their role in personnel evaluation by the graduate programs.
McGreal (1988) proposed that appropriate training be
provided to both the teachers and principals to bring about a
process of evaluation that first begins with staff development.
In his proposed plan, after the goals of the district are
established, the teachers help design the staff development and
the teacher evaluation. Teachers then know what criteria will be
used for their evaluation. With this method, the evaluation system
becomes the mechanism for monitoring staff development and the
vehicle for maintaining instructional momentum generated by that
staff development (McGreal).
Other issues addressed by Castetter (1981) included concern
that results were not utilized appropriately and expectations were
not established. Charges were made that appraisals were unjustly
used for disciplinary action, salary increase, promotion, or
dismissal, and personnel did not understand the criteria. Finally
came the indictment that the plans did not encourage self esteem,
creativity or individuality of the teachers (Castetter).
Teachers voiced concerns about the evaluation process
because they felt that the evaluations were not helping them
improve teaching or solve instructional problems (Root & Overly,
1990). Concern was expressed about the help received from
principals after the evaluations. In a National Institute of
Education survey of 10,000 teachers, 20 percent said the principal
was no help in improving teaching and learning (Root & Overly).
Teacher organizations voiced opinions concerning evaluations
as rules and regulations were promulgated (McNeil, 1981). The
National Education Association favored evaluation of teachers for
instructional improvement but not for accountability (McNeil).
The American Federation of Teachers' position paper expressed the
idea that analysis and assessment of teachers should lead to self
growth and development through programs based on specific roles of
teachers (McNeil).
Another concern from both teachers and principals was the
emotional pressure brought on by evaluations. Black (1993)
mentioned that teachers reported dread at seeing the principal
come into their classroom carrying the clipboard. On the other
hand, according to Buser and Pace (1988), the process was equally
as stressful for the evaluator as the evaluatee. There must be a
basis of trust between the administrator and teacher for the
process to work (Conley & Dixon, 1990).
Hartzell (1994) believed staff development could help
principals minimize such problems as those mentioned by
Castetter and others by raising the awareness level and by
providing training in error prevention and detection. According to
Joki (1982), school boards can help improve the quality of
teaching, which is one of the reasons for evaluation, by writing
strong and clear policies on inservice training for both
principals and teachers and by allowing principals more time to
observe classrooms, and for staff development. School improvement
is an ongoing endeavor through which principals are able to
identify discrepancies between what is and what should be (Gainey,
1990). Through the teacher evaluation process, school improvements
should be expected in the educational program and the staff should
experience a measure of professional growth (Gainey).
While the linking of evaluation to programs based on
specific roles of teachers or staff development is relatively new,
this process makes teachers and principals active partners in
instructional improvement with the teacher exercising self-
direction in professional growth (Witherspoon, 1989). According to
Pfeifer (1986), the integration of staff development and teacher
evaluation systems can help in addressing accountability and
improvement goals. Hunter (1988) reported that to have an
effective evaluation program there must be a continuing staff
development program for all involved. The evaluation program
should be designed to measure the results from the staff
development program in terms of performance behavior instead of
paper and pencil knowledge (Hunter, 1988). DuFour and Berkey
(1995) suggested that supervision of teachers should become a
fertile ground for staff development instead of an ineffective
attempt at rating teachers. Indications are that districts have
not taken seriously the idea that staff development is essential
to teacher growth since less than one half of one percent of their
resources are spent on staff development (Darling-Hammond, 1996).
Gainey (1990) stated, "The implied philosophy that teacher
evaluation is a component in a professional development growth
plan must become the operational philosophy" (p. 16).
With the educational reform movement of the 1980s and the
pressure to show conpetency among the teachers came a need for
effective, reliable, and logically defensible methods of teacher
evaluation (Ellis, 1986). The plans for evaluation given by the
teacher organizations, principals, boards of education, and others
involved in education can be divided into two major groups. The
first group is formative evaluation to help teachers inprove
performance by providing them with data, judgments, and
suggestions with implications for what to teach and how to teach.
The second group is summative evaluation to serve administrators
in decisions concerning hiring, firing, promotion, tenure,
assignments, and salary (Millman, 1981). Several authors have
insisted that the primary purpose of evaluation is that of
improving performance with the secondary purpose being concerned
with employment decisions (Campbell, Bridges, & Nystrand, 1977;
Jacobson, Logsdon, & Wiegman, 1973). Armigen (1981), however,
believed the character of the evaluation was shifting from
formative to sunmative because of new ideas about teacher
evaluation that have emerged from broad accountability movements,
declining student enrollments, and the need to reduce staff cost.
Efforts have been made to design evaluation systems that can
effectively accomplish both formative and sumnative evaluation
tasks, but an acute dilemma occurs in attempting to reconcile the
two functions (McNeil, 1981). While evaluation techniques need to
be fair and consistent due to differences such as teaching styles
and situations, and student abilities, no one model exists of what
the teachers should be doing and how it should be done (Travers,
1981).
Several methods of evaluation were part of the reform
movement of the 1980s. These evaluation methods generally
clustered around measurements of personal characteristics,
inspection of the processes by which the individual performed, and
observations of results (Castetter, 1981). Same of the evaluation
methods mentioned by Castetter included rating scales, observation
systems, student outcomes, checklists, and interviews. Other
evaluation methods currently in use include classroom observations
with performance objectives or standards (Stodolsky, 1990),
student performance (Glass, 1990), portfolios (Bird, 1990), and
self evaluation (Barber, 1990; Good & Mulryan, 1990;). Other
writers (Buser & Pace, 1988; Christen & Murphy, 1987; McGreal,
1983; and Stobbe, 1993) have cited peer evaluation as an
important component of the evaluation system.
Before using classroom observations as part of an evaluation
program, principals need to help teachers understand the
performance objectives (White, Wyne, Stuck & Coop, 1987). Many
different check sheets have been developed over the years to
record the observed behaviors (Burke & Lind, 1987; Christen &
Murphy, 1987; White et al.; West Virginia Department of Education
Policy 5310, 1992). Considering all of the skills needed for
effective teaching on a single instrument is almost impossible
(White et al.).
Resul ts-oriented measures such as student performance on
tests have been considered to be the ultimate measure of a
teacher's ability, but there are problems associated with the use
of such results (Popham, 1986). When teachers have a diverse group
of students with some not even slightly motivated by learning, the
use of test results as an indicator of satisfactory performance
may not be fair (Popham).
Self evaluation can be a naturally occurring event once
teachers have learned to be self-reflective (McGreal, 1983). In
the contract plan, one method of self evaluation, the teacher and
evaluator work cooperatively through steps of review of
performance, establishment of priorities, development of
performance objectives for improvement, implementation and
monitoring of a plan, and final evaluation of the impact of the
plan (Iwanicki, 1981). The assumption is that teachers are
competent professionals seeking to strengthen or improve
particular aspects of their performance through professional
growth (Iwanicki). Buser and Pace (1988) believed that too often
this self assessment works best for those who need it least
because those who are less competent are not willing to identify
their needs and attempt such a plan of assessment.
Peer observations and feedback may be more acceptable to
some teachers than feedback provided by principals (Christen &
Murphy, 1987). In peer evaluations, observations of lessons are
shared with fellow teachers to help them realize how well they are
using critical elements of instruction. The primary goal is to
improve classroom performance with the ultimate goal being to help
students learn more effectively (Christen & Murphy). Some teachers
feel peer appraisals are more beneficial when there is assurance
that the results will not be shared with superiors (Buser & Pace,
1988). Some principals though appreciate the opportunity to be
involved in teacher discussions about what is going on in the
classrooms (Stobbe, 1993). Using the collective knowledge gathered
in peer observations, the principal can become more responsive as
the instruction leader (Stobbe).
Any evaluation process should at least provide the evaluatee
an appraisal of strengths and weaknesses, encouragement to improve
performance, identification of training needed to overcame
identified deficiencies, establishment of open communication
between principal and teacher, and a basis for the administrators
decisions (Campbell, 1987). This assisting teachers in growth and
providing principals with evaluation tools can be accomplished
through staff development (Pfeifer, 1986).
West Virginia Teacher Evaluation System
Efforts of the federal and state agencies to reform
education began in the early twentieth century and have continued
into the present decade (Stanley & Popham, 1988). In an effort to
show the public that local districts are being held accountable
for quality education, several state legislatures have mandated
evaluation of teachers (Rebell, 1990). State boards of education
have approved state regulations for evaluations which have usually
been formulated by employees of the state's department of
education (Armiger, 1981). A study by Tracy and Smeaton (1991)
found that before 1979 only four states had regulations requiring
assisting and assessing of teachers. By 1990, 44 states had
10
evaluation requirements for veteran teachers and 47 states either
had or were in the process of implementing programs for assisting
and assessing beginning teachers (Tracy & Smeaton). In 1990, West
Virginia joined the states that have a mandated teacher evaluation
system (School Laws of West Virginia. 1993).
The third executive session of the West Virginia State
Legislature adopted laws which resulted in state code 18A-2-12:
Performance evaluation of school personnel; professional personnel
evaluation process (School Laws of West Virginia. 1993). This law
mandated the state board of education to adopt a written system
for the evaluation of the employment performance of personnel
(School Laws of West Virginia). The system was to be applied
uniformly by county boards of education in the evaluation of the
employment performance of personnel employed by the board.
According to this law, the purposes of evaluation in West Virginia
are to serve as a basis for the improvement of performance of
personnel, an indicator of satisfactory performance for individual
professional personnel, documentation for a dismissal on the
grounds of unsatisfactory performance, and the basis for programs
to increase professional growth and development of professional
personnel. This law also states that no person can evaluate
professional personnel without having an administrative
certificate issued by the state superintendent and having
successfully completed education and training in evaluation skills
through the West Virginia Center for Professional Development or
11
other training approved by the board (School Laws of West
Virginia, 1993).
In compliance with state code 18A-2-12, the West Virginia
State Board of Education amended Policy 5310, entitled Performance
Evaluation of School Personnel, effective July 1, 1992. The
specified purposes are to promote professional growth and
development and quality performance, and to provide evaluation
data as one basis for sound personnel decisions. This state board
policy has specific guidelines for observation of teachers,
conferences, evaluations, entering the two year professional
growth and development cycle (phase I phase II), and developing an
improvement plan. Directions are given for orientation along with
the number of observations and evaluations needed based upon years
experience, and for post observation conferences and evaluations.
Within the West Virginia state plan for evaluation of
teachers, provision has been made to allow teachers with six or
more years of experience and satisfactory evaluations for the
previous two years the option to enter into a professional growth
and development cycle instead of remaining in the performance
evaluation. No data is available as to the number of teachers who
have chosen to enter the phase I phase II cycle. Neither is there
literature to substantiate reasons for not entering phase I or II.
This phase I phase II cycle enables teachers to develop a plan for
growth similar to the contract plan which Iwanicki (1981) said was
as an effective plan if the purpose was to improve teaching
12
performance. The cycle of growth and development was explained by
Tony Smedley in the Performance Evaluation of School Personnel
brochure (1994). In the first year that a teacher participates in
the growth and development cycle (phase I) the teacher and
principal develop a plan that includes goals and objectives from
one of the following goal areas: programs of study, classroom
climate, instructional management system, student progress,
conmunication, and professional work habits. A pre conference is
held in which past performance is reviewed, a goal area is
selected, objectives are specified, timelines are set, and a
review process is agreed upon. During the year the principal
provides feedback and helps the teacher maintain ownership of the
plan. If at the end of the first year in the professional growth
and development cycle, the principal and teacher agree that the
goal has been met, the teacher may enter the second year (phase
II) of the cycle. In phase II the teacher develops and implements
an individual plan that contains clearly stated goals and then
self-evaluates the progress.
The West Virginia evaluation plan is a uniform plan in that
forms are provided for documentation of all observations,
evaluations, and contract plans. Every school is obligated to use
the same documentation but individual counties are responsible for
establishing their own timelines in compliance with the West
Virginia plan (West Virginia Board of Education Policy 5310).
13
Statement of the Problem
This study was designed to determine and compare the
perceptions of principals and teachers in West Virginia in
relation to selected aspects of the state mandated teacher
performance evaluation. Specifically the following questions were
asked:
1. What are the differences, if any, between
principals' perceptions of current and desired
teacher performance evaluation practices in
West Virginia?
2. What are the differences, if any, between
teachers' perceptions of current and desired
teacher performance evaluation practices in
West Virginia?
3. What are the differences, if any, between the
perceptions of teachers and principals regarding
current and desired teacher performance
evaluation practices in West Virginia?
4. What is the relationship, if any, between
principals' overall satisfaction with the state
mandated teacher evaluation system in
West Virginia and the principals'
a. perception of competency of the evaluator?
b. perception of adequacy of the evaluator
and evaluatee training?
14
c. understanding of the goals and purposes
of teacher evaluation?
d. perception of the opportunity for input
in the evaluation process?
e. perception of effects of the teacher
evaluation process on the quality of
instruction?
f. perception of emotional pressures of the
evaluation?
g. perception of the value of the teacher
evaluation to professional growth and
development of teachers?
h. perception of the relationship between
the evaluation and individual teacher's
staff development plans?
5. What is the relationship, if any, between teachers'
overall satisfaction with the state mandated teacher
evaluation system in West Virginia and the teachers'
a. perception of the competency of the
evaluator?
15
d. perception of the opportunity for input in
the evaluation process?
e. perception of the effects of the teacher
instruction?
f. perception of the emotional pressures of
the evaluation?
What are the differences, if any, between teachers
and principals in the relationships between
overall satisfaction with the state mandated
teacher evaluation system and each of the following:
a. perception of competency of the evaluator?
d. perception of the opportunity for input in
the evaluation process?
e. perception of the effects of the teacher
16
instruction?
f. perception of emotional pressures of the
evaluation?
7. Is there a significant difference in perceptions of
principals' overall satisfaction as predicted by
demographic factors:
a. gender?
b. age?
c. educational level?
d. years of experience as a school principal?
e. type of school in which one is the
principal?
8. Is there a significant difference in perceptions
of teachers' overall satisfaction as predicted
by demographic factors:
a. gender?
b. age?
c. educational level?
d. years experience as a teacher?
e. type of school in which one teaches?
9. Why have eligible West Virginia teachers
chosen not to participate in phase I and phase II
of the growth and development cycle of the state
mandated evaluation system?
Significance
In several other states which have uniform teacher
evaluation systems, research has been conducted to gather
information concerning the perceptions of educational
professionals in relation to the evaluation process. Researchers
in California (Brizendine, 1987; Rudnicki, 1989), Iowa (Lawler,
1992), Missouri (Ferguson, 1990; Schweitzer, 1990), Washington
(Leffler, 1990), Connecticut (Rapczynski, 1989), and North
Carolina (Massey, 1988) have studied the effects of evaluator and
evaluatee training, the understanding of purposes for evaluation,
the value of the evaluation process to professional growth and the
quality of instruction, and overall support for evaluations.
The decision to include the other independent variables in
this study was made after reviewing research which indicated these
factors have an influence on the perceptions of personnel in
regard.to evaluations. Strike and Bull (1981) indicated that
teachers have certain professional, evidential, and procedural
rights in the evaluation process. Teachers evaluation rights
include the right to have decisions made on the basis of evidence,
18
relevant criteria, and a set of standards and the right to know
what these standards are. Prom existing case law, Beckham (1981)
extrapolated that teachers should be fully informed of the
standards to be met.
To be of value to the teacher, the evaluation needs to be
combined with professional development so that teachers can
improve through core training in areas in which they are deficient
(McGreal, 1988). If appropriate training is provided to both the
teachers and principals, the evaluation can be important in
improving and enhancing the classroom instructional process
(McGreal).
Both teachers and principals have reported levels of stress
associated with evaluations (Hipps & Halpin,1992; Natriello,
1990). Timke (1992) used anxiety during evaluation as one of the
factors in her study of perceptions of teachers, principals, and
superintendents toward the Illinois teacher evaluation system.
Halstead (1988) used factual information including gender,
education, and other demographics in a similar study. Schweitzer
(1990) included age, sex, years of experience, and type of school
in a Missouri study concerning the performance based teacher
evaluation system.
Findings prompted White (1990) to reconmend that a study be
conducted to determine and analyze administrative perceptions of
teacher evaluation and that a comparison be made between teacher
and administrator perceptions of the process. Lawler (1992) whose
19
study of teacher evaluation was in Iowa recamended that other
states conduct similar research.
While the West Virginia Legislature has mandated the teacher
evaluation, it has not included provisions for study and
evaluation of the process by those involved in evaluations.
Researchers have verified the need for such evaluation of
educational reform measures by those involved so that they feel
they are a part of the process (Timke, 1992). Paguch and Rath
(1983) and Winston (1984) established a rationale for the
continuous study and monitoring of teacher evaluations. Bolton
(1973) said that too often a system of evaluation is developed
without a systematic approach to judge its effectiveness. With
constant monitoring of the evaluation process a school system can
modify the plan as needed and thus avoid many problems (Bolton).
According to Tony Smedley of the West Virginia Department of
Education, no known studies have been conducted in West Virginia
concerning the perceptions of evaluators or evaluatees in relation
to the system or in relation to factors that contribute to
satisfaction with the system (personal communication, October,
1995).
Since no studies concerning perceptions of principals and
teachers in relation to the West Virginia teacher evaluation
process have been done, the results should be beneficial to
several groups and individuals. The results should be of interest
to officials in the West Virginia State Department of Education
20
and the members of the West Virginia Legislature as they review
the current mandated evaluation process for its benefits and
deficiencies and make changes in the process. Local staff
development carmittees can use the results as they plan for
teachers' staff development programs related to the evaluation
procedures in phase I and phase II and the performance stage.
Principals can use the results as they orient employees to the
evaluation process. The administrators in the West Virginia State
Department of Education and local central offices, and school
boards can use the results as they plan staff development for the
principals who are in charge of evaluation. Teachers and
principals can use the results as they compare their perceptions
of the process and attempt to understand the emotional stress
levels of each other. Principals can use the results as they
attempt to encourage teachers to enter phase I of the evaluation
process. Finally, educational administration professors can use
the information as they prepare classes for prospective and
present principals.
Definition of Terms
Age 20-25, 26-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45, 46-50, over 50 as used by
Freel (1987).
Education level level of certification upon which a teacher is
paid according to the School Laws of West Virginia as indicated by
respondent on the Perceptions of the West Virginia Teacher
Evaluation System survey (FWVTES)
21
Gender male or female
Perceived adequacy of training-a score on FWVTES survey which
indicates whether the respondent believes the evaluator has had
enough training in teacher evaluation
Perceived competency of evaluator a score on FWVTES survey which
indicates whether the respondent believes the evaluator is
competent in the evaluation process
Perceived effects of evaluation upon quality of instruction a
score on FWVTES with indicates whether the respondent believes the
evaluation has an effect upon the quality of instruction in the
classroom
Perceived emotional pressures a score on FWVTES which indicates
whether the respondent believes there is little stress caused by
teacher performance evaluation
Perceived opportunity for input in the evaluation process score
on IWVTES which indicates whether the respondent believes
evaluatees are given opportunity to participate in deciding upon
their evaluation process during planning or in the pre or post
conference
Perceived relationship between evaluation and staff development
score on FWVTES which indicates whether the respondent believes
the evaluation results are used in planning those programs which
help the individual to grow professionally
Perceived value of teacher evaluation to professional growth and
development a score on PWVTES which indicates whether the
22
respondent believes the evaluation results are used to help the
individual develop an action plan for future professional growth
Respondents an appropriately sized random sanple of teachers and
principals from West Virginia public schools
Satisfaction a score obtained on FWVTES relating to the
individual's feelings about the evaluation process
Type of school identified by the respondent as elementary,
middle/ junior high, or high school
Understanding of goals and purposes a score on FWVTES which
indicates whether the respondent knows the goals of the WV state
mandated teacher evaluation system
Years of experience of principal total number of years principal
has been in charge of evaluation of teachers 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-
15, 16-20, over 20 as used by Timke (1992)
Years of experience of teacher total number of years teacher has
been teaching 1-2, 3-6, 7-10, 11-15, 16-20, over 20 as used by
Timke (1992) with changes made in the 3-5 and 6-11 years to
accommodate West Virginia's growth and development plan for
teachers with more than 6 years experience
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in this study: (a) the
state mandated performance evaluation of school personnel is in
place in all schools in the state, (b) all professional personnel
are being evaluated as directed, (c) the state, county, and local
school authorities are interested in improving the system and will
23
use the results obtained for such purpose, and (d) respondents
will answer honestly.
Limitations
The findings of this study are only valid to the extent to
which respondents are representative of all professional educators
in West Virginia and to the extent that they express true feelings
with no fear of reprisal. Limitations may exist due to sampling
error, the possibility of subjects fed ling to respond, and
respondent bias (Borg & Gall, 1989; Kerlinger, 1986).
24
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
A review of the literature on teacher evaluation revealed a
long history involving several groups and individuals. Studies
have been conducted which question the aspects of evaluation and
seek to unveil feelings about the process as perceived by those
who are most closely involved, the teachers and principals.
This chapter discusses various opinions, criticisms, and
praises of the complex process of evaluation along with the
purposes for such evaluations. Methods of evaluation that have
been proposed, tried, approved, rejected, or continued until a
decision can be made concerning their merits are considered.
Researchers' and staff developers' plans for linking teacher
evaluation and staff development will be reviewed. Finally, the
history of teacher evaluation at the West Virginia State level
where the legislature has developed plans throughout the years to
be carried out by the chain from the state department of education
to the local schools are examined.
History of Teacher Evaluation
The Industrial Revolution of the 1800s brought an
advancement in teachers' power to determine a place in the
educational society (Clark, 1993). In the Colonial Period through
the Civil War time, the supervisory program was seen as an
inspection program for the sake of control (Marks, Stoops, & King-
25
Stoops, 1978). Local state units such as counties were in charge
of inspection of schools and classrooms with emphasis upon
observing rules and maintaining standards (Marks et al.).
Laymen, clergy, and committees were responsible for the inspection
of schools and classrooms (Marks et al.). Schools grew in size as
cities grew. In 1847 the Massachusetts General Court passed a law
requiring towns of 50 or more families to establish schools with
teachers hired to teach reading and writing (Marks, et al.).
Seventeen years later the General Court passed a law that these
same teachers should be approved by the elders of the town, and
overseers of Harvard University were to insure that they were
sound in faith and not scandalous in their lives (Marks et al.).
Town committees were reluctant to surrender their authority
over schools and teachers, but the nation's growth in the 19th
century required supervisory responsibility to be given to
professional school administration which took the place of the
previous committees (Marks et al., 1978). The duties were first
clerical, then disciplinary, then administrative, and finally
supervisory. As the principal teacher emerged, board members
realized they could no longer supervise the school systems (Marks
et al.).
From 1910 to 1935 when the responsibility for supervision
was divided between principals and special helper teachers,
emphasis was on improving instruction through direct classroom
observation with attention focused on the weaknesses of teachers
26
(Marks et al., 1978). During this time period, the first rating
scales appeared (Good & Mulryan, 1990) in an effort to eliminate
favoritism or unequal treatment of personnel (Castetter, 1981).
These earliest ratings were done by administrators (Good &
Mulryan), but evidence showed that the classroom visitations and
criticisms were not resultant in improvement of instruction but
did lead toward the development of programs for such improvement
(Marks et al.). The Committee an Child Development of the
National Research Council in 1920 created the first observational
development research instrument which was an important step in
teacher effectiveness research (Good & Mulryan). In Boston, the
Boston Carmittee of Laymen was appointed to inspect and approve
teachers, courses, and classroom instructional techniques (Marks
et al.).
During the 30s and 40s few areas of uniformity in ratings
were seen (Good & Mulyran, 1990), but those areas most often
appearing included classroom management, instructional skills,
efforts toward improving, cooperative ability, professional
preparation, personal fitness, and interest in work (Good &
Mulryan). The ratings were used for promotion, transfer and
dismissal, and salary increase.
The nature of the supervisory program shifted in the period
from 1935 to 1963 from one of focusing upon teachers' weaknesses
and effectiveness by aiming toward improvement through in-service
education courses. The responsibility rested upon principals and
27
special supervisory personnel to provide the necessary training
(Marks et al., 1978). In 1941, the Ohio Teaching Record, a major
step in the study of teacher effectiveness (Good 6. Mulryan, 1990)
encouraged cooperation between teachers and administrators in an
effort to improve instruction.
By the early 1950s an increase in the number of men in
teaching give more political clout to education (Clark, 1993).
Also the Soviet Union was producing better educated students than
the united States (Clark) giving rise to more public demand for
ways to produce teacher accountability. Unions had grown and
leaders attempted to help set specific criteria for evaluation of
teachers in terms of dismissal, continuation, or advancement
(Clark). In the late 50s and early 60s most teacher appraisals
were done with rating instruments on which judgments were
presented in numerical form and a total rating was obtained (Good
& Mulryan, 1990). A second type of rating of teachers during the
60s had judgments with regard to the presence or absence of
certain traits considered necessary for teachers. A final
evaluation was a self appraisal (Good & Mulryan).
From 1964 through the 70s principals, teachers, and
specialists shared in the supervisory program. Centered around
cooperative study enterprises, these supervisory programs placed
emphasis on using federal monies to continue the staff development
and instructional management programs emphasized in earlier years
(Marks et al., 1979).
28
The 70s and 80s brought about a turn from some slight
interest to quite intense activity in the area of instructional
evaluation (Doyle, 1983). As instructional budgets became
increasingly constrained and pressures for documentation in
personnel decisions increased, a change from emphasis on
instructional improvement to evaluation for promotion, salary, and
termination took place (Doyle). The 1983 report by the National
Camdssion on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk, revealed
that America's students were not as good as had been thought in
that the nation's schools were failing to teach the basic skills.
Concern was aroused as to the possibility of developing effective
teachers through the evaluation process (Clark, 1993). A Nation at
Risk called for finding a better way of evaluating teachers and
designing structures to distinguish among levels of teachers.
According to Tracey and Stneaton (1993), within two years of the
report, most states had enacted some educational reform measure
with many of these pertaining to evaluation.
Legislation
Evaluation systems of the 1990s are often tied to
legislative authority since the constitutions of all 50 states in
same manner provide for the educational programs of their states
(Marks et al., 1978). Before 1979 only four states had statutes
or regulations requiring assisting and assessing of teachers
(Tracy & Stneaton, 1993). By 1980 the number of states requiring
some form of evaluation had increased to 21 (Tracy & Stneaton,
29
1993) thus enabling Wuhs and Manatt in 1983 to state that the pace
of mandated evaluation had picked up. By 1990 44 states had
legislated evaluation requirements (Darling-Hanmond, 1990; Tracy &
Stneaton).
State legislatures have varying degrees of control over
teacher evaluation (Marks et al., 1978), ranging from vague or an
absence of control other than mandatory evaluation to criteria
defined locally, to criteria defined at the state level, and
finally to state level behavioral indicators to explain more
general criteria (Sclan, 1994; Tracy & Smeaton, 1993; Wuhs S
Manatt, 1982). Local districts of 15 states are required to
develop or adopt their own evaluation system procedures and these
may very from school to school. Local districts of 14 other states
are required to adopt their own policies following general state
guidelines. Then there are 15 states that have evaluation policies
with detailed procedures and processes (Sclan).
As state legislatures increase financial support, they
exhibit a growing concern over whether the expenditures are
resulting in improved instruction (Marks et al., 1978). State
mandated evaluation programs provide a symbolic reassurance to the
public that teachers are being held accountable for their actions,
thus gaining public respect and trust (Airasian, 1993; Armiger,
1981).
In most states having evaluation requirements, the general
areas of competency for performance evaluation include planning,
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
classroom management, communication, instruction, assessment, and
professional development (Sclan, 1994). In some states teachers
are allowed to help in developing standards for evaluation
(Hazard, 1993), but the plans are usually formulated by employees
of the state department of education (Armiger, 1981).
Areas of emphasis in the reasons for evaluations vary from
state to state (Wuhs & Manatt, 1983). In 1983, in 12 of the states
with mandated evaluation emphasis was on due process requirements
as part of the procedures to be followed before teacher dismissal.
In 23 states the evaluation was used as a method to inprove
teaching. Only two states utilized evaluations as a way to
guarantee teacher accountability (Wuhs & Manatt). Guaranteeing
teacher accountability by using an evaluation system is quite
difficult considering that teachers often feel the mandates from
the state undermine their efforts instead of promoting high
quality education (Milner, 1991), thus leading to criticism of the
evaluation systems.
Perceptions of Teacher Evaluation
Some teachers and principals have said evaluations are a
complete waste of time and effort (Airasian, 1993; Boyd, 1990). A
1992 study in Illinois found 70% of the teachers surveyed and 47%
of the principals to be in agreement that teacher evaluation had
limited or no effect on the improvement of instruction. In a
similar study in Washington, Halstead (1988) found just 45% of the
teachers surveyed indicated the evaluation process had improved
31
teaching. Root and Overly (1990) reported that the process of
evaluation is just a bureaucratic requirement to seme teachers and
does little to improve teacher performance. Instead of improving
performance, they found that for seme teachers and principals the
process contributed only to weariness while reinforcing skepticism
about bureaucratic processes (Root and Overly).
Ellis (1986) reported that while for some the evaluation
process is an essentially meaningless formality regarded with
suspicion and contempt by teachers and viewed as frustrating by
evaluators, it can and should be an effective and dynamic agent
for educational renewal. Apparently some teachers and principals
agree that evaluation can be of help (DePasquale, 1990). In a 1993
survey of certificated personnel in Colorado, 75% of the
principals and 52% of the teachers surveyed said that instruction
had improved as a result of the evaluations conducted. Sixty
percent of the teachers said their effectiveness as a teacher had
improved as a result of the personnel evaluation system
(Certificated Personnel Performance Evaluation Survey Report).
The attention given to accountability of school systems has
made it clear that taxpayers want to know whether the input into
the schools is producing satisfactory outputs (Jacobson et al.,
1973). State Legislators and other critics have called for more
rigorous and extensive processes of evaluation of teachers
(Ashbaugh & Kasten, 1987). Buser and Pace (1988) believed
evaluation to be important to the higher professions and the
32
expertise that is expected by the public and that for which the
public is willing to pay. Evaluations are the system's most
powerful tool for effective administration and provide
opportunities for communication, observation, and coaching (Buser
6 Pace). Thus evaluations have an impact on the total school
picture including climate, philosophy, and vision (Hartzell,
1995).
The importance of a satisfactory evaluation system is
possibly sunned up best by Thomas Ellis (1985): "An evaluation
system, if well designed, provides teachers with the necessary
feedback to assess their own professional growth. A poorly
designed evaluation system can be disastrous, pitting teachers
against principals and engendering anxiety, mistrust, and
resentment" (p. 2).
Independent Variables
Even with legislative approval, current evaluation processes
have not always been the desired practice of all parties involved.
There are concerns related to: lack of competency of evaluator
(Buser & Pace, 1988), necessity for training of both evaluatee and
evaluator (Pfeifer, 1986), lack of opportunity for teacher input
in the process with expectations of the goals and purposes of
teacher evaluation not being established (Sclan, 1994; Strike &
Bull, 1981), evaluation not resulting in improved instruction
(McLaughlin, 1990), the emotional pressures brought about by
evaluations (Trochinski, 1988), evaluation not resulting in
33
professional growth (Setteducati, 1995), and the relationship
between evaluation and the individual teacher's staff development
plans (McGreal, 1988).
Cermetencv of Evaluator
McKenna (1981) insisted that principals need training in
evaluation with a more intense preparation in evaluation theory
and process. While teachers do not question the principal's right
to evaluate, they have questioned their competency in evaluation
practices (Trochinski, 1988), and often have not given credence to
the principal as a competent, comnitted, credible evaluator just
because of the position occupied in the organization (Buser S
Pace, 1988). Root and Overly (1990) found that the credibility of
the evaluator is an often overlooked element in the evaluation
process leading some to question whether evaluators have the
training, technical competence, and knowledge to be viewed as
trustworthy and competent for the task. But research has indicated
that some evaluatees perceive their evaluators quite capable
(Halstead, 1988). Halstead found that over 89 percent of the
respondents to his survey viewed their evaluator as possessing
necessary skills and having been trained well in evaluation.
Wood (1992) found that most principals believe when they
evaluate a teacher, they form a judgment based on what they saw,
and then respond to the teacher's performance based an what has
occurred. Instead of such objective appraisal, Woods believed that
often the evaluator observes the teacher's performance and
34
responds to the performance with a judgment based on preconceived
attitudes, beliefs, and expectations. The yielding to preconceived
ideas by evaluators has caused seme teachers to view evaluations
as lacking objectivity and meaning. Wood proposed a concentrated
effort in training principals in a naturalistic orientation so
that they look for what is happening in the classroom and then see
reality not based upon preconceived ideas. Training, according to
Wood, should help principals view happenings in the classroom in
the context of the whole class setting and through the eyes or
with the perception of the teacher.
Specific training for principals helps teachers to see them
as more credible and if the training helps to increase teachers
respect for the evaluator, the teachers are more likely to accept
the recommendations of the evaluator (Seldin, 1988). In Ruckel'sin
Ruckel's (1993) Certificated Personnel Survey 63% of teachers said
that evaluator training had irrproved the quality of their
evaluations.
Training for Evaluator and Evaluatee
Before teachers and principals can be meaningfully involved
in establishing evaluation procedures, joint training sessions can
provide an opportunity to develop a common understanding about
evaluation expectations and language (McLaughlin, 1990). Teachers
and principals do not think in the same way about teacher
effectiveness as shown in the teacher self-ratings which have a
low correlation with principal observation ratings in areas of
35
teaching skills, professional activities, and student/teacher
relations (Airasian, 1993). Through the training sessions,
principals and teachers begin to share goals, knowledge, and
expectations (McLaughlin).
Training for teachers in Santa Clara, California, has made
the process clearer (Pfeifer, 1986). Teachers in Santa Clara
reported that they felt evaluations were fairer because they knew
what was being evaluated and what was expected (Pfeifer).
Teachers in Charlotte, North Carolina who were trained in
evaluation had only one complaint: they wanted more training
(Pfeifer).
Understanding of Goal Expectations and Opportunity for Input
Several researchers have acknowledged the need for teachers
to be involved in the evaluation process so that they know what is
expected (Armiger, 1981; Eye, Netzer, & Krey, 1971; Manatt, 1988;
McKenna, 1981). According to Sclan (1994), placing evaluation
systems in schools without ongoing teacher participation is unfair
to teachers in that it ignores them. Because teachers and
principals sometimes have qiute different perceptions of
evaluations, problems in communication and cooperation may arise
when teachers are not involved in the plans for evaluation (Neal,
1989). Not being allowed to participate in the preliminary
evaluation process can also cause teachers to feel that the
evaluation has come from the top down and treats them as children
while threatening their sense of professionalism and forcing them
36
to adopt practices just for the evaluation procedures (Milner,
1991). Teachers not given the opportunity to have an active role
in making decisions about how their performance will be assessed
and about the consequences of the evaluation will not support the
process (McLaughlin, 1990).
On the other hand, when given a chance for involvement in
the evaluation process, teachers are more committed to the process
and are more tolerant for the inevitable errors that will occur in
evaluation (McLaughlin, 1990). According to Bolton (1973) the
purpose of the evaluation must be identified, discussed, and
agreed upon by all involved in the evaluation. Armiger concurred
that evaluations tend to be more successful when teachers
participate in the development of criteria by which they will be
judged even if this involvement comes by way of negotiations
through their organizations (1981).
In considering the purpose of teacher evaluation, one must
sometimes go back to the legislative ruling that mandated the
evaluation (Wuhs & Manatt, 1983). The purposes usually given for
evaluation include improving instruction and making personnel
decisions such as rewarding performance, supplying information for
changing assignments, and protection of the individual teacher
(Airasian, 1993; Bolton, 1973). The manner in which the data from
an evaluation are used determines if it is a formative evaluation
or a surrmative one (Barber, 1990). If the data from an evaluation
are given back to the teacher for use in improving instruction and
37
are not used to make judgments about them, it is a formative
evaluation (Barber). If the data are used to make judgments about
placement, status, salary, or conditions, the evaluation is
sunmative (Barber). According to Campbell (1987), teachers must
know if the evaluation is formative or sunmative. Iwanicki (1990)
reasoned that the purpose of the evaluation has a direct effect on
the performance expectations that are set for the teacher and
there may be a real problem if no cartmon understanding of the
purpose exists between teacher and principal.
The two major purposes for evaluation, summtive and
formative, have often been considered to be at odds with each
other (Ellis, 1986; Trochinski, 1988), yet for legal or budgetary
reasons principals must often assume both sunmative and formative
roles (Dagley & Orso, 1991). When principals are required to do
both sunmative and formative evaluations, Bolton (1973) believed
the evaluation process emphasized accountability to the detriment
of helping teachers improve. To be effective, a formative
evaluation requires a mutual trust relationship between evaluator
and evaluatee (Ellis). Even if formative evaluation is preferred
by the evaluatee or the evaluator or both, it is hard for any
evaluation not to be interpreted as sunmative (Buser & Pace,
1988); thus, trust between evaluator and evaluatee needed for
improvement is hard to obtain (Ellis). A survey of teachers and
principals in Colorado found both groups agreed that formative
38
evaluation and sumative evaluation should be done by different
persons to avoid possible role conflict (Kelley & Taylor, 1990).
When formative and summative evaluations cannot be conducted
by two different people, Popham (1986) believed the sumnative
evaluation should be forfeited completely and the formative
evaluation carried out for the improvement of instruction. On the
other hand, Armiger (1981) believed the emphasis on accountability
forces evaluators to concentrate on the more rigorous assessment
of personnel using summative evaluation procedures.
Same evaluation experts see no problem with integrating
summative and formative evaluation. In the opinion of Dagley and
Orso (1991), a cycle including clinical supervision being used
once for sumnative and again for formative evaluation is the way
to connect the two evaluations. In the first clinical supervision,
Dagley and Orso used a pre-observation conference, observation,
analysis of observation, post conference, and planning for
improvement. Teachers who met the minimal accountability standards
were moved to the formative side where they concentrated on
particular areas of growth. After working through the formative
side, teachers returned to the formative side to work on another
area or they went back to the sumnative side again. Those teachers
who did not meet minimum standards in the first sumnative
evaluation entered intensive assistance programs and went through
the process again (Dagley & Orso).
39
Airasian (1993) also saw formative and surmative evaluations
connected. He believed decisions about tenure should only be made
after a history of teaching assignments devoted to improvement. If
the process is viewed from both a formative and summative
perspective, the evaluator and evaluatee can look for and expect
long term growth (Gainey, 1990).
Both the National Education Association (NEA) and American
Federation of Teachers (AFT) have endorsed the use of teacher
evaluation for formative purposes (Duke & Stiggins, 1990). Such
support as that received from NEA and AFT has encouraged many
school districts to consider adding a professional development
component to the teacher evaluation system (Duke 6 Stiggins).
Improved Instruction
Another criticism of the evaluation process was that it does
not result in improved instruction in the classroom thus leading
to negative attitudes toward evaluation (McLaughlin, 1990;
Setteducati, 1995; Trochinski, 1988). Teachers want the evaluation
to actually identify strengths and weaknesses so that they can
improve (McNeil, 1981). Ferguson (1990) found that 83% of
elementary principals and 94% of middle/junior high principals who
responded to his survey believed that the most important purpose
of teacher evaluation was to help teachers improve in the
classroom. All of the teachers in Ferguson's study agreed that
teacher improvement was the most important purpose of evaluation.
White (1990) in a similar study found that 74% of the teachers
40
surveyed believed that the current evaluation practices in their
schools did inprove classroom instruction. But Halstead (1988) and
Timke (1992) obtained contrary results. Only 45% of the teacher
respondents in Halstead's survey believed that the evaluation
system in Vancouver, Washington had helped them improve in their
instruction. In Timke's study 30% of the teachers and 44% of the
principals described evaluation as effective in achieving
instructional inprovement. Freel's (1987) study of Missouri
teachers yielded similar results with 51% stating that the
evaluation experience had helped to perfect their teaching skills.
To implement a teacher evaluation and instructional support
program that assists teachers in their quest to inprove,
principals must allow the evaluation to be a component of a
professional development growth plan (Gainey, 1990). The inpact of
evaluation on teaching may depend on the extent to which the
evaluation feedback is actually linked to the teacher's staff
development (Freiberg, 1987; Pfeifer, 1986). The staff development
that results from evaluations should be a problem-based approach
which gives teachers the opportunity to enhance their knowledge
and skills over the course of their careers (Darling-Hanmond,
1996). Staff development that is linked to evaluation can be used
to influence the beliefs and attitudes of teachers so they can
plan evaluation strategies (Pfeifer, 1986), thus completing a
circle of staff development, evaluation, and staff development.
41
Bnotional Pressures
The stress factor for both evaluators and evaluatees is
another concern among educators (Buser & Pace, 1988; Hipps &
Halpin, 1992; Koehler, 1990). According to Buser and Pace, one of
the contextual realities of teacher evaluation is that it can be
equally stressful for both the evaluatee and evaluator, causing
one or both to resist the process. Those evaluating may be just as
uncomfortable as those being observed (Koehler). Castetter (1981)
stated that what makes an organization run is the quality of the
relationship between the one evaluated and the one evaluating.
Often when principals must use the evaluation system mandated by
state legislatures, an increased level of tension exists between
the principal and the teacher (Freiberg, 1987) and creates stress
for both. When teachers have a negative or neutral attitude
toward evaluations caused by not knowing the criteria and by their
evaluations not resulting in inprovement, a stressful relationship
may result between them and the principal. (Trochinski, 1988).
Relations with subordinates creates significant amounts of
stress for principals (Williamson & Campbell, 1987). Evaluating
staff has been placed as one of the top 12 stressors for
principals (Hipps & Halpin, 1992) and ranked as the number eight
stressor by Roberson and Matthews (1988). Principals may become
frustrated by the paperwork required for evaluations and the lack
of time to do an adequate job of supervising and evaluating
(Freiberg, 1987).
42
When areas in need of inprovement are identified, teachers
may become more tense (Lyman, 1988). Any evaluation where the
consequences are considered to be important can produce anxiety
(Pfeifer, 1986). Many teachers fear evaluation (McNeil, 1981) and
because of such anxiety they will not inprove even when given
opportunity (Natriello, 1990). Unclear or unacceptable criteria,
lack of teacher involvement in developing criteria, and infrequent
or superficial observations by evaluators all lead to a lack of
trust between principals and teachers (Pfeifer). Failure of the
principal to conduct prompt follow-up conferences can also be a
source of anxiety for teachers (Campbell, 1987).
Timke (1992) found that when asked to describe the level of
anxiety experienced in connection with their evaluation, 30% of
the respondents reported either extreme or high anxiety, 37%
reported moderate anxiety, and 15% reported no anxiety. When the
administrators were asked to describe the level of anxiety they
sensed in the teachers, none of them reported sensing no anxiety
in the teachers being evaluated. Twenty-eight percent reported
sensing extreme or high anxiety, 37% reported moderate anxiety,
and 16% reported the anxiety level they sensed as low.
Professionals agree that evaluations are supposed to improve
instruction, but with the anxiety produced for all involved,
instructional improvement is usually minimal and the process tends
to be negative, feared, and rejected (Root & Overly, 1990). To
help reduce the stress, a climate conducive to a high degree of
43
efficacy among the teachers needs to be created (McKenna, 1981).
Concerns about purposes and procedures of evaluations need to be
addressed and teachers need to be taught about the evaluation
process to generate a perception of fairness and create a positive
environment to reduce stress and anxiety (Pfeifer, 1986).
Value of Evaluation to Professional Growth and Staff Development
The last concerns addressed in this study are the role the
evaluation plays in professional growth and the relationship of
the evaluation to individual staff development. Because few models
are available to link staff development and teacher evaluation
(Witherspoon, 1989), school systems hesitate to commit time and
money to change evaluation practices with no assurance that there
will be a payoff (Pfeifer, 1986). Many teachers desire the staff
development and sane states are mandating continuing professional
development for the their teachers (Duke & Stiggins, 1990).
The impact of evaluations on teacher performance may vary
depending upon the extent to which staff development practices
support the evaluation feedback (Pfeifer, 1986). The ideal cycle
according to McQuarrie and Wood (1991) is to have staff
development followed by formative evaluation followed by summative
evaluation. Three connections between staff development and
evaluations are offered by McQuarrie and Wood: (1) evaluation
identifies need for staff development and should become the basis
for planning goals and objectives; (2) districts provide staff
development as it relates to the evaluation process so teachers
44
know what to expect in evaluation; and (3) evaluations are used as
a basis for judging the effectiveness of staff development.
Problems exist in this nation in finding an evaluation
system linked to staff development (Sheerin, 1991). College
professors often consider evaluation and staff development as two
separate topics instead of connecting them and showing the
relationships (McQuarrie & Wood, 1991). Since teacher evaluation
is not usually linked to staff development, staff development is
usually not designed to meet individual needs of teachers as they
are identified by the evaluation process (Witherspoon, 1989).
Principals must help teachers to see the connection between
staff development and evaluation and to use staff development as
an opportunity for growth and improvement (Sparks, 1992).
Coordination of staff development and evaluation can construct a
social context where trust and open communication are the norm
(Pfeifer, 1986), as in Hobart, Indiana, where teachers and
principals worked together to develop professional development
plans which were individualized for each teacher and based on the
evaluation process (Witherspoon, 1989).
As previously discussed, teachers are concerned when the
results of evaluation are not used for any meaningful professional
development (Boyd, 1990). The greatest priority in supervision and
evaluation, according to Sapone and Sheeran (1991), should be on
the growth of the individual and should be concerned with the
individual growth as a primary source of overall organizational
45
success. Teacher evaluation should give teachers useful feedback
on needs along with opportunities to learn techniques on how to
make changes by linking evaluation to professional development
(Boyd, 1990). Coupled with the evaluation process, staff
development should help teachers develop skills, knowledge,
attitudes, and values necessary to carry out a productive role in
the school (Pfeifer, 1986).
In California, staff development and teacher evaluation have
been tightly coordinated (Pfeifer, 1986). In the Moraga School
District, a source of dissatisfaction was the evaluation system.
When the new superintendent connected staf workshops in
instructional effectiveness directly to evaluation, there was a
marked increase in teachers' perceptions of the fairness of the
evaluation. Administrators' workshops are devoted to evaluation
skills. The district-wide staff development for teachers and
administrators serves as evaluation criteria. (Pfeifer)
Evaluation that provides an external push to inprove
supported with appropriate staff development fills a critical
lacuna in the teaching profession. When schools help teachers
identify areas for improvement through evaluation and then provide
the available resources through staff development, both the
teachers and the system benefit (Pfeifer).
Methods of Evaluation
When the evaluator and evaluatee are clear about the
purposes and goals of evaluation, it is essential that the
46
evaluator knows how best to measure goal accomplishment (Good &
Mulryan, 1990). Many methods have been proposed in the past and
many are presently being used to measure success in carrying out
the established goals (Castetter, 1981; Darling-Hantnond et al.,
1983; Searfoss & Enz, 1996).
The purpose of the evaluation, formative or summative, is a
determining factor in the method chosen for the evaluation
(Dariing-Hammond et al., 1983). Evaluation most suited for
summative purposes needs to yield objective, standardized, and
externally defensible data while evaluation for formative purposes
should yield descriptive information that shows areas of
difficulty and methods of inprovement (Dar 1ing-Harrmond et al.).
Student achievement has been used as a measure in evaluation
(Castetter, 1981) and in the 1980s increasingly became part of
teacher evaluation (Cornett, 1985). Popham (1986) saw the use of
student achievement as a measure in evaluations as not taking into
account the differences in student abilities and attitudes or
instructional methods employed in the classroom. Using student
achievement to evaluate teachers is "too susceptible to distortion
and manipulation" and has the tendency to give tests a position
near that of curriculum goals (Glass, 1990), but in a never ending
effort to please the public, evaluators have sometimes yielded to
the pressure to show competency by using student achievement as a
measure of satisfactory teacher evaluation (Glass).
47
Another measure dependent upon students used in teacher
evaluations is student ratings of teachers (Popham, 1986). Often
the student ratings of teachers can be contaminated by a teacher's
popularity or by the students' interest in the subject (Popham).
Good and Mulryan (1990) suggested that student ratings obtained by
the teachers and used by the teachers can be most beneficial in
helping them to learn more about how their teaching has helped
students to learn and how students react to certain teaching
strategies. Especially good for beginning teachers are pupil
surveys that ask for opinions about presentation of new materials,
opportunity to practice and perform, reasonable control, and an
overall statement of the teacher's effectiveness (Peterson, 1990).
Seme teachers choose to give students a questionnaire as part of
their data bank from which to make decisions concerning their work
(Barber, 1990).
According to Kelly and Taylor (1990), one of the most common
methods of evaluation is seme form of clinical supervision. In
clinical supervision there is a pre-observation conference,
classroom observation, analysis of data, post-observation
conference, and post observation self analysis (Gordon, 1992).
Hunter (1986) found the pre-observation conference to be a
waste of time and stated that it should be eliminated from
clinical supervision. Hunter also believed the pre-observation
conference builds bias in both the teacher and observer. But
others such as John Lordon (1986) disagreed as to the importance
48
of the pre-observation conference. Based upon cements from
teachers in Lordon's school district concerning the pre
observation conference, Lordon believed this conference to be
quite necessary for orientation to how the lesson fits into the
long range plans, for opportunity to discuss how the teacher
evaluates pupils and uses the results, for learning about the
pupils in the class to be observed, and for teachers to be able to
ask for specific help.
Just as there is disagreement as to the benefit of the pre
observation conference part of clinical supervision, disagreement
occurs concerning the benefit of classroom observations.
Stodolsky (1990) saw classroom observation as good for looking at
behavior or actions but less useful in gaining understanding of
thinking and feeling. According to Setteducati (1995),
observations seldom inprove teaching performance or contribute to
professional growth. Observations may distort a teacher's
performance unless the observer is well trained (Popham, 1986).
Classroom observations are found by some to be disruptive with
minimal value, since even poor teachers may be able to put on a
good presentation for one observation (Root & Overly, 1990). In
clinical supervision, the observation is expanded to include a
more detailed account of what is occurring in the classroom
(Gordon, 1992). Exclusive use of classroom observation as the
evaluation procedure presumes that observable teacher action is
enough upon which to judge a teacher's adequacy (Stodolsky).
49
During the classroom observation, checklists are sometimes
used along with rating systems (Stodolsky, 1990). According to
Popham (1986), administrative ratings often are done by
administrators who have outmoded and simplistic views of teaching.
Administrators may use their recollections of their own classroom
performance as measures to rate teachers (Popham). Good and
Mulryan (1990) believed that ratings do have a place in
evaluations if school systems match their objectives carefully
with the evaluation procedures they use. Good and Mulryan proposed
that the key role for teacher ratings is to expand opportunity for
teachers to reflect upon their instruction by analytical
examination of the data pertaining to classroom procedures rather
than rating teachers only to confirm the presence or absence of
behaviors.
After the observation, the evaluator in clinical supervision
gives direct assistance to the evaluatee through sharing varied
and specific data in the post-observation conference (Gordon,
1992). In the post-observation conference teachers are given an
opportunity to analyze and make decisions about their teaching
based upon the objective data gathered by the evaluator during the
observations (Gordon). Sharing of data in the post-observation
conference leads teachers to self-analysis (Gordon).
Teachers are becoming more involved in planning and
implementing their own evaluations (Black, 1993). Teacher self-
analysis or self-assessment is the self-ownership of teacher
50
evaluation (Koehler, 1990). According to Clark (1985), strong
teachers need an opportunity to attain a stage of professional
development that is above that which the evaluation is designed to
measure. Teacher self-assessment is composed of many elements to
produce judgments about one's own teaching for self-improvement
(Barber, 1990) and is built around a teacher's strengths and
weaknesses allowing a teacher to grow and be challenged (Clark).
Usually the highly motivated teachers (Barber) and those who need
little supervision (Clark) are the teachers most suited for self-
assessment .
Techniques most commonly used for sel f-assessment include
self-rating forms, self reports, self study materials such as
videos, and peer observations (Barber, 1990; Boyd, 1990). Problems
including lack of objectivity, accuracy, and reliability can
appear in self-assessment, but the process can be a most powerful
force for educators if used appropriately (Barber).
Peer feedback as a part of self-assessment has received
mixed response. In a survey of 230 teachers in central Florida,
80% said peer observations would be helpful (Rothberg & Fenner,
1991). But in Freel's (1987) survey of teachers in Michigan only
48% said peers should be involved in the evaluation. According to
Christen and Murphy (1987), teachers feel that peer feedback is
more acceptable and more accurate than administrator feedback.
In a school in California teachers serve as peer observers
for each other in the classroom (Stobbe, 1993). They gather data
51
on goals and monitor progress as requested by their partner
teacher. At the end of the evaluation period, the principal and
the two teachers write a combined summary of the events that have
transpired (Stobbe).
In Colorado teachers also observe each other as peer
teachers (Walen & DeRose, 1993). On the day of the observation,
the peer teachers meet both before and after school for
discussion. The teachers in Colorado commented that they gained
more from observing a peer than from being observed (Walen &
DeRose).
Peer teacher observation is also used in an Illinois school
as part of the self-evaluation program where it has seen success.
In this school, teachers visit other teachers classrooms in lieu
of the principal and engage in the post conference to discuss what
was observed and make comments (Rooney, 1993). Teachers feel that
peer feedback leads to open communication between teachers and
enables teachers to better evaluate the effectiveness of their
instruction (Christen & Murphy, 1987).
Teachers involved in self-evaluation sometimes make use of a
portfolio which gives them the opportunity to reflect upon their
own work, change practices, or applaud themselves as true
professionals (Setteducati, 1995). The idea of a portfolio as an
accumulation of accomplishments to be used for evaluation purposes
has been borrowed from other occupations such as architecture,
photography, and art (Bird, 1990). According to Popham (1986), if
52
the criteria upon which a portfolio is to be judged is made
public, teachers will fashion their portfolios to gain points. But
Bird (1990) saw the portfolio not so much used as part of the
evaluation system but rather as a measure in attaining a high
standard of practice.
Individual portfolios can contain anything the teacher feels
will show that he/she is a true professional (Bird). Wolf (1996)
suggested that a portfolio should include background information,
some combination of teaching artifacts and written reflections,
and professional information. The background information Wolf
mentioned included a resume, information on teacher and teaching
context, and one's educational philosophy and teaching goals. In
the artifacts and written reflections, Wolf included an overview
of goals, an instructional plan for a unit, two lesson plans for
the unit, list of resources used in the unit, videotape of
teaching, student work samples, evaluation of student work,
reflective commentary by the teacher, and additional work as
appropriate. For professional information, Wolf included lists of
professional activities, letters of recommendation, and formal
evaluations. The use of portfolios in evaluations could be a
means for teachers and others to cooperate in attaining high
standards of practice (Bird, 1990).
According to Tom McGreal in an interview with Ron Brandt,
many school districts are creating profession growth tracks for
tenured teachers (Brandt, 1996). The professional growth tracks
53
are built around individual goal setting called professional
development plans which are carried out by the teacher and within
an agreed on time frame are discussed by the evaluator and teacher
with no sumnative write-up, no rating, and no evaluative
caimentary (Brandt).
Through a cycle of doing, assessing, and inproving, teachers
who are involved in self-assessment are constantly involved in a
growth and development plan (Airasian, & Gul lickson, 1994). This
growth and development plan for professional improvement is often
formulated by the evaluator and evaluatee in an annual setting of
goals for the plan (Witherspoon, 1989). The teacher is knowingly
in control of the assessment in a growth and development plan and
must be willing to assume the responsibility for the plan
(Airasian S Gullickson).
West Virginia Teacher Evaluation System
Teacher evaluation in West Virginia as in many other states
was under the control of each county until the early 1980s when
State Board Policy 5300 was adopted. This policy stated:
Every employee is entitled to know how well he
is performing his job, and should be offered the
opportunity of open and honest evaluation of his
performance on a regular basis. Any decision
concerning promotion, demotion, transfer or
termination of employment should be based upon
such evaluation, and not upon factors extraneous
54
thereto. Every employee is entitled to the
opportunity of inproving his job performance,
prior to the terminating or transferring of his
services, and can only do so with assistance of
regular evaluation (Policy Statement West Virginia
Board of Education School Personnel, 1981.)
Policy 5300, while forcing each county to implement a
personnel evaluation plan, did not give specifics for the plans.
The policy remained in effect for the evaluation of all personnel
until January 1985, when the Board adopted Policy 5310, which was
developed from the recommendations of a statewide task force
(Executive Summary, Proposed revisions to Policy 5310, 1987) and
called for evaluation procedures to be established for all school
personnel (Cornett, 1985).
Policy 5310 stated that a county's evaluation policy should
have at least four major purposes: (1) to inprove quality of
education, (2) to provide information for employees to inprove
their performance, (3) to determine those employees eligible for
future incentive systems, and (4) to provide information which is
used as the basis for sound personnel decisions (Title 126,
Legislative Rule West Virginia Board of Education Chapter 18-2,
Series 5310, May, 1986). Policy 5310 gave each county the
responsibility to develop and implement a staff evaluation policy
and to implement written administrative procedures related to the
components of the county's staff evaluation policy. The policy was
55
not specific in performance standards but stated that they should
be developed from the errployee's job description. There was more
specificity in the evaluation process including guides for
orientation, number of observations and evaluations, and
inprovement teams (Title 126).
After the counties developed their own evaluation policies
based upon the state's requirements, state department staff
conducted surveys of the counties related to their implementation
of staff evaluation policies and presented a report to the State
Board of Education (Executive Sunmary, Proposed revisions to
Policy 5310, 1987). The report recanrmended among other things
modifications in the purposes of evaluation; the use of
alternative rating systems; changes in the number of observations
required; alterations to evaluations, conferences, and improvement
teams; and training to be expanded to include training in
observation and conferencing techniques (Executive Sunmary).
In May of 1986, Policy 5310 was amended and Policies 5311-
5315 were added, specifying performance standards for teachers,
principals, central office staff, service personnel, and
supervisors of service personnel (Memorandum from past State
School Superintendent, Tom McNeel, 1986). The performance
standards required that each county's evaluation for teachers
include programs of studies, classroom management, instructional
skills, monitoring student progress, professional growth, pupil-
teacher-parent relationships, and professional work habits. While
56
the standards were required for each county evaluation plan,
possible indicators for each standard were listed for clarity but
were not required (Policies 5310-5315, West Virginia Department of
Education). Again there was no prescribed form for the evaluation.
A task force to develop a uniform evaluation plan for the
state was appointed by the State Board of Education in 1989 (Tony
Smedley, personal communication, March, 1996). The task force,
chaired by Tony Smedley of the State Department of Education,
included representatives from higher education, regional education
service agencies (RESA), classroom teachers, superintendents'
association, principals' association, West Virginia Education
Association (WVEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and
professional educators. The team began meeting in October of 1989
and the new evaluation policy was adopted in January 1991.
Policy 5310 in its amended form became the unified teacher
evaluation policy for all teachers in West Virginia beginning with
the 1992-93 school year. The criteria for evaluation under Policy
5310 were based on research and board initiatives and required
counties to inclement written administrative procedures related to
the requirements of the state. For teachers with zero to two
years of experience, the yearly evaluation requirements include
two written evaluations each of which covers three observations.
The observations are to be at least thirty minutes and one of the
observations must be of actual classroom instruction. Each
observation must be followed by a conference within five working
57
days. For teachers with three to six years of experience the
yearly evaluation requirements include one written evaluation
following two thirty minute or longer observations with each
observation followed by a conference within five working days.
Again at least one of the observations must be in the classroom
setting.
A teacher who is entering the seventh year has the option of
moving to a two year professional growth and development cycle
that alternates between two phases (I and II) provided performance
ratings were satisfactory during the previous two evaluations, a
professional growth and development plan is developed, and the
teacher remains in the same or similar position for two
consecutive evaluations. If the provisions are not met, the
teacher remains under the performance evaluation with one
evaluation per year required. A teacher who receives an
unsatisfactory evaluation is placed on an inprovement team.
Surrmative evaluation forms the basis for personnel decisions
(Sclan, 1994).
In the performance evaluation, the forms for checking
behaviors are standard across the state. Unlike the earlier Policy
5310 where only the standards were given, both the standards and
indicators of those standards are now specified (see Appendix A).
In the professional growth phases the evaluation is not
structured as it is in the performance evaluation. In phase I, the
teacher and evaluator together develop the plan of action for the
58
evaluation but in phase II the teacher is solely responsible for
the self-evaluation. In phase II several self-assessment
strategies have been described by in the West Virginia Department
of Education's brochure explaining the growth and development
cycle (Professional Growth and Development Cycle, 1994). The self-
assessment strategies mentioned include those previously discussed
as being beneficial to professional growth: checklists,
portfolios, peer observations, and staff development practices.
The self-assessment is similar to the contract plan
discussed by Iwanicki (1981) in which performance is reviewed,
performance objectives are developed, implemented, and monitored,
and results are evaluated. According to Iwanicki, these self-
assessments are implemented effectively only when a firm
foundation has been set for the teacher evaluation process and
schools are committed to the process of planning a teacher
evaluation program based upon the actual teacher needs. The main
problems seen by Iwanicki are usually a result of limited and
sometimes inappropriate training of the evaluatees. Iwanicki
stated that training programs need to be developed to introduce
the staff to the process, to train them in skill areas relevant to
effective implementation, and to afford them the opportunity to
voice and resolve concerns about the process.
There are both positive and negative aspects to the growth
and development plan (Iwanicki, 1981). On the positive side, the
plan is strong in promoting professional growth through correcting
59
weaknesses and enhancing strengths and in fostering positive
working relationships between teacher and evaluator. Growth and
development plans help in realizing unique professional growth
needs of teachers and in clarification of performance expectations
with explicit criteria for the evaluation and integration of
individual performance objectives with the goals and objectives of
the school (Iwanicki).
On the negative side, growth and development plans require a
substantial amount of paperwork on the part of the teacher if a
portfolio or collection of materials is assembled by the teacher
to document commendable performance. The evaluation may also force
evaluators to make decisions about teacher performance in areas in
which they are not qualified while putting too much emphasis on
attainment of measurable objectives (Iwanicki, 1981).
In West Virginia efforts have been made to reduce negative
aspects of not just the growth and development cycle, but of the
whole evaluation plan. State Code 18A-2-12 states that no person
may evaluate personnel without first having successfully completed
training in evaluation skills (School Laws, 1993). According to
Henry Marockie, State Superintendent of School, during the summer
and fall of 1992, administrators' leadership institutes were
conducted throughout the state by the Center for Professional
Development in cooperation with the West Virginia Department of
Education to train educators with Policy 5310 (Performance
evaluation of school personnel, [brochure], 1993-94).
60
Summary
A review of the literature on teacher evaluation nationwide
revealed that it is an ever changing but always present activity
to be cooperatively engaged in by principals and teachers but
increasingly controlled by state governing agencies. As
evaluations continue, those involved including not only principals
and teachers, but also boards of education, legislatures, teacher
organizations, and college professors keep looking for improvement
in methods and ways to increase the benefits of teacher
evaluation.
This chapter has traced teacher evaluation from the
historical perspective to the present examining some of the
concerns of the many groups involved in evaluations including the
competency of the evaluator, training for the evaluator and
evaluatee, understanding of goals and purposes for evaluations,
benefits of the evaluation to improvement in instruction,
emotional pressures associated with evaluations, and the value to
professional growth and staff development. Reasons for evaluations
and methods which have been used and are presently being used were
outlined. Finally the West Virginia professional personnel
evaluation systems history was traced and the present system was
described.
61
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to determine and corrpare the
perceptions of principals and teachers in West Virginia in
relation to selected aspects of the state mandated teacher
performance evaluation. This chapter will describe the development
of the research questions, population and sample, the research
design used in the study, the instrumentation developed for this
study, and the methods used to analyze the data.
Development of Research Questions
The nine research questions for this study were developed
after conducting the literature review which revealed the concerns
of teachers about teacher evaluation methods and processes. From
the literature carmen concerns frequently mentioned about
evaluations included: competency of the evaluator, adequate
training for both the principal and teacher in evaluation,
understanding of the reasons for the evaluation, opportunity for
teachers to have input in the evaluation process, effects of the
evaluation on the quality of instruction in the classroom,
emotional pressures associated with evaluations, value of
evaluations to professional growth and development, and the
relationship between the evaluation and individual teacher's staff
development plans.
Although West Virginia has a uniform plan for teacher
evaluation which may or may not be perceived to address any or all
62
of the above factors, it is a fact that there is no established
system for the review and evaluation of the perceptions about the
evaluation system. Research questions one through six pertaining
to each of the previous concerns were developed to ascertain the
perceptions of both principals and teachers in West Virginia as
they pertain to the state mandated evaluation system. Questions
seven and eight were developed to discover if there is a
difference in perceptions due to demographics as has been studied
in other states. Finally question nine was written to find out why
teachers have not chosen to enter the growth and development cycle
of the state evaluation plan (phase I and II).
Population and Sample
The population for this study consisted of all public school
teachers (N=24,000) who were teaching in West Virginia and all
public school principals (N=1135) who were in charge of teacher
evaluation in the state of West Virginia in 1996 (Nancy Hawkins,
State Department of Education). A computer program, EPISTAT
(personal communication, Ranson, April, 1996), was used to
determine the number of subjects needed for a random sample of
teachers (n=270) and principals (n=218). Sample subjects were
randomly selected from the population by the data processing
department of the West Virginia Department of Education.
Research Design
This study used survey research which is best adapted to
obtaining information about personal beliefs and attitudes
63
(Kerlinger, 1986). Borg and Gall (1989) indicated that survey
research with its long history can be used to collect a variety of
information. Kerlinger (1986) reported that survey research is a
useful tool for educational fact-finding and through it a great
deal can be learned about the school system without contacting
every person involved.
The study first of compared what teachers and principals
believe evaluation practices should be to what they perceive the
West Virginia evaluation practices are and then compared the
responses of the principals and teachers to see if there was a
significant difference. Second, this study investigated the
relationship of the dependent variables, principal and teacher
perceptions of the present teacher evaluation system in West
Virginia, to the independent variables: (a) the perceived
competency of the evaluator, (b) the perceived adequacy of
evaluator and evaluatee training, (c)understanding of goals and
purposes of evaluation, (d) the perceived opportunity for input in
the evaluation process, (e) the perceived effects of the teacher
evaluation process on the quality of instruction, (f) the
perceived emotional pressures of the evaluation, (g) the perceived
value of the teacher evaluation to professional growth and
development, and (h) the perceived relationship between evaluation
and individual teacher's staff development plans. Again a
ccmparison of the principals' and teachers' responses was made.
Third, this study attempted to find out if the demographic factors
64
of gender, age, educational level, years experience, and type of
school in which one works predict a difference in perceptions of
principals and teachers concerning the evaluation system.
Finally, the study asked why those teachers who have not entered
the growth and development cycle (phase I and II) have chosen not
to do so. Both the dependent and independent variables were
measured as perceptions of the respondents to the survey
questions.
Instrumentation
Perceptions of evaluators and evaluatees were collected
through the administration of separate survey instruments to
evaluators and evaluatees. The instrument, Perceptions of the WV
Teacher Evaluation System (FWVTES), was designed specifically for
this research with the items designed to establish answers to the
nine research questions. The thirty-five items on the instruments
were based upon similar items used by seven other researchers
(Ferguson, 1990; Freel, 1987; Halstead, 1988; Rapczynski, 1989;
Schweitzer, 1990; Tiirike, 1992; and White, 1990) in studies
concerning teacher evaluation in other states. The initial survey
instrument was tested for general readability by a group of 50
educators. After changes in the wording of some statements for
clarification were made, the instrument was reviewed by a panel of
experts (see Appendix B) to establish content related validity for
its use in addressing the research questions.
65
Procedures
The survey was nailed to the selected sample with a self-
addressed stamped return envelope at the end of August so that
principals and teachers would receive it as soon as school
started. A cover letter (Appendix C) explained the purpose of the
survey, assured anonymity of the participants, and encourage all
recipients to respond within two weeks. Responses were entered
into a computer program upon receipt. A follow-up mailing was
conducted two weeks after the initial mailing in order to obtain a
return rate of at least 50 percent plus one.
Data Analysis
Various general linear models were used in the data
analysis. Post hoc analyses were conducted when appropriate.
The first research question: "What are the differences, if
any, between principals' perceptions of current and desired
teacher evaluation practices in West Virginia?" was addressed by a
comparison of the means of the odd numbered, desired practice,
principal survey items 1 through 25 with the means of the
inmediately following even numbered, current practice, survey
items. (Exanple: 1 compared to 2, 3 compared to 4).
The second research question: "What are the differences, if
any, between teachers' perceptions of current and desired teacher
evaluation practices in West Virginia? was addressed by a
comparison of the means of the odd numbered, desired practice,
teacher survey items 1 through 25 with the means of the
66
imnediately following even numbered, current practice, survey
items 2 through 26. (Example: 1 compared to 2, 3 conpared to 4).
To answer research question three: "What are the
differences, if any, between the perceptions of teachers and
principals regarding current and desired teacher performance
evaluation practices in West Virginia?" a general linear model
procedure was used. A comparison was made of the means found in
questions one and two.
The fourth research question examined the relationship,
between principals' overall satisfaction with the state mandated
teacher evaluation system in West Virginia (Part III item 9 of the
survey) and the principals' (a) perception of competency of the
evaluator (survey statement 10), (b) perception of adequacy of the
evaluator (statement 8) and evaluatee training (statement 12), (c)
understanding of the goals and purposes of teacher evaluation
(statements 20, 22, 24, and 26), (d) perception of the opportunity
for input in the evaluation process (statement 6), (e) perception
of effects of the teacher evaluation process on the quality of
instruction (statement 4), (f) perception of emotional pressures
of the evaluation (statements 14 and 16), (g) perception of the
development of teachers (statement 2), and (h) perception of the
development plans (statement 18). Pearson Correlation was used in
the analysis of data.
67
The fifth research question: "What is the relationship, if
any, between teachers' overall satisfaction with the state
mandated teacher evaluation system in West Virginia (Part III item
9 of the survey) and the teachers' (a) perception of competency of
the evaluator (survey statement 10), (b) perception of adequacy of
the evaluator (statement 8) and evaluatee training (statement 12),
(c) understanding of the goals and purposes of teacher evaluation
(statements 20, 22, 24, and 26), (d) perception of the opportunity
for input in the evaluation process (statement 6), (e) perception
of effects of the teacher evaluation process on the quality of
instruction (statement 4), (f) perception of emotional pressures
of the evaluation (statements 14 and 16), (g) perception of the
development of teachers (statement 2), and (h) perception of the
development plans (statement 18). Pearson Correlation was used in
the analysis of data.
To address research question six, which asked if there were
differences in principals and teachers in relation to their
overall satisfaction with the state mandated system and their
perceptions of the eight factors, a comparison of the correlation
values found in questions four and five was made.
Research questions seven: "Is there a significant difference
in perceptions of principals' overall satisfaction as predicted by
demographic factors?" was addressed by Pearson Correlation in
68
comparing the response to the survey item 9 Part III concerning
overall satisfaction to the demographic factors for principals.
Research question eight: "Is there a significant difference
in perceptions of teachers' overall satisfaction as predicted by
demographic factors?" was addressed by Pearson Correlation in
comparing the response to the survey item 9 Part III concerning
overall satisfaction to the demographic factors for teachers.
Research question nine: "Why have eligible West Virginia
teachers in the sample chosen not to participate in phase I and
phase II of the growth and development cycle of the state mandated
teacher evaluation system?" was addressed by Part III, items six,
seven, and eight of the survey. Reasons for not participating were
tallied. Comments made by respondents on the survey were compiled
and are given in Appendix D.
69
CHAPTER POUR
PRESENTATION OF DATA
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to ascertain and compare the
perceptions of public school principals and teachers as they
relate to the West Virginia state-mandated teacher evaluation
process. The study examined both principals' and teachers'
perceptions of the current teacher evaluation system and compared
those perceptions with desired teacher evaluation practices of
both teachers and principals.
The study attempted to ascertain if there is a difference in
the perceptions of principals and teachers as they relate to the
evaluation system. The study also endeavored to find any
relationships between principals' overall satisfaction with the
evaluation system and eight selected factors of that system, any
relationships between teachers' overall satisfaction with the
evaluation system and the eight factors, and any differences
between principals and teachers in the relationships between
overall satisfaction and the eight selected factors. Differences
in perceptions of both principals and teachers as predicted by
demographic factors were examined. Finally the study addressed the
question of why teachers choose not to participate in the phase
I/phase II growth and development cycle of the state evaluation
system.
70
Demographic Data
Surveys were sent to 218 principals; 125 (57.34%) responded.
Surveys were sent to 270 teachers; 154 (57.04%) responded. The
demographic factors of gender, age, educational level, years of
experience as a teacher or principal, and the type of school in
which one works were collected.
Gender
Over 70% of the principals who responded were male and over
80% of the teachers who responded were female. Of the total 279
respondents including both principals and teachers 43.72% were
male while 56.27% were female. (See Table 1).
Table 1 Gender of Respondents in Study
Gender N(P) %(P) N(T) %(T) N(W) %(W)
Male 92 73.60 30 19.48 122 43.73
Female 33 26.40 124 80.52 157 56.27
TOTAL 125 100.00 154 100.00 279 100.00
N=Number P=Principal T=Teacher W=Whole
71
Age
No principals responding to the survey were younger than 36.
The greatest number (36.8%) of principal respondents were in the
46-50 age category. The greatest number of teacher respondents
were in the 46-50 (26.62%)and the 41-45 (25.97%) categories. (See
Table 2).
Table 2 Age of Respondents in Study
Age N(P) %(P) N(T) %(T) N(W) %(W)
20-25 0 0.00 4 2.60 4 1.43
26-30 0 0.00 9 5.84 9 3.23
31-35 0 0.00 14 9.09 14 5.02
36-40 10 8.00 13 8.44 23 8.24
41-45 26 20.80 40 25.97 66 23.66
46-50 46 36.80 41 26.62 87 31.18
over 50 42 33.60 31 20.13 73 26.16
no response 1 0.80 2 1.30 3 1.07
TOTAL 125 100.00 154 99.99 279 99.99
Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.
72
Educational Level
More than 97% of the responding principals, had a master's
or higher degree with only one having less than a master's degree.
Fifty-one or 33% of the teachers had less than a masters degree
while 64.28% had a master's or higher degree. (See Table 3).
Table 3 Educational Level of Respondents in Study
N(P) %(P) N(T) %(T) N(W) %(W)
Bachelor 0 0.00 10 6.50 10 3.58
Bachelor + 15 0 0.00 42 27.27 42 15.05
Bachelor + 30 1 0.80 9 5.84 10 3.58
Master 3 2.40 8 5.19 11 3.94
Master + 15 2 1.60 16 10.39 18 6.45
Master + 30 32 25.60 29 18.83 61 21.86
Master + 45 81 64.80 39 25.32 120 43.01
Doctorate 4 3.20 0 0.00 4 1.43
No Response 2 1.60 1 .65 3 1.08
TOTAL 125 100.00 154 99.99 279 99.98
73
Experience
Only 7% of principals reported less than six years
experience. Of teacher respondents, 7.15 reported less than seven
years experience. More than two-thirds (67.2%)of principals and
75.33% of teachers reported 11 years or more experience. (See
Table 4).
Table 4 Years of Experience of Respondents in Study
Years N(P) %(P) N(T) %(T) N(W) %(W)
1-2 3 2.40 4 2.60 7 2.51
3-5 (3-6T) 7 5.60 7 4.55 13 4.66
6-10 (7-10T) 30 24.00 24 15.58 54 19.35
11-15 22 17.60 23 14.94 45 16.13
16-20 22 17.60 27 17.53 49 17.56
over 20 39 31.20 66 42.86 106 37.99
No Response 2 1.60 3 1.95 5 1.79
TOTAL 125 100.00 154 100.01 279 99.99
74
School Level
The majority of both principal and teacher respondents work
at the elementary level. (See Table 5).
Table 5 Type of School of Respondents in Study
N(P) %(P) N(T) %(T) N(W) %(W)
Elementary 71 56.80 68 44.16 139 49.82
Middle/Junior 18 14.40 40 25.97 58 20.79
Senior High 26 20.80 42 27.27 68 24.37
Other 10 8.00 4 2.60 14 5.02
TOTAL 125 100.00 154 100.00 279 100.00
Research Questions
Question 1. What are the differences, if any, between
principals' perceptions of current and desired teacher performance
evaluation practices in West Virginia? Data were analyzed by
ANOVA. A comparison of the principals desired practice means and
current practice means was made. ANOVA results (Table 6) indicated
differences between desired and current practices as perceived by
principals on all 13 items.
Table 6 Analysis of Variance
Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value
STATUS (principal) 1 357.22090 357.22090 454.64*
ITEM (13) 12 925.80465 77.15039 98.19*
STATUS* ITEM 12 102.78085 8.56507 10.90*
* p< .01
The results of the survey for principals are given in Table 7.
76
Table 7 Means for Current and Desired
Practices in Teacher Evaluation as Perceived by Principals
MEANS
ITEM SHORT DESCRIPTION DESIRED CURRENT DIFFERENCE
1 Beneficial to professional
growth/devel opment 4.54 3.58 0.96
2 Positive effect on instruction 4.54 3.44 1.10
3 Opportunity to participate 4.58 4.61 0.03
4 Sufficient evaluator training 4.73 4.18 0.55
5 Competency of evaluator 4.68 4.32 0.36
6 Training for teachers 4.45 4.00 0.45
7 Teacher stress 4.18 4.08 0.10
8 Principal stress 4.35 3.66 0.69
9 Staff development based on
evaluation 3.84 3.06 0.78
10 Promotion of professional
growth 4.18 3.54 0.64
11 Encouraging quality
performance 4.66 3.83 0.83
12 Providing data as basis for
decisions 4.23 3.16 1.07
13 Career awards and merit pay 3.03 1.90 1.13
TOTAL MEAN FOR PRINCIPALS 4.31 3.64 0.67
77
teachers' perceptions of current and desired teacher performance
evaluation practices in West Virginia? Data were analyzed by
ANOVA. A comparison of the teachers' desired practice means and
current practice means was made. ANOVA results (Table 8) indicated
differences between desired and current practices as perceived by
teachers on all 13 items. The greatest differences were found on
items nine and thirteen. Item nine, addressed by statements 17 and
18 of the survey, concerned basing staff development upon
evaluation results. Item 13, addressed by statements 25 and 26,
concerned career awards and merit pay being based upon evaluation
results.
STATUS (teacher) 1 923.68440 923.68440 1117.32**
ITEM (13) 12 1120.78936 93.39911 112.98**
STATUS* ITEM______ 12 75.58047 6.29837 7.62*________
* < .05
** < .01
The results of the survey for teachers are given in Table 9.
78
Table 9 Means for Current and Desired Practices
in Teacher Evaluation as Perceived by Teachers
ITEM SHORT DESCRIPTION DESIRED CURRENT DIFFERENCE
1 Beneficial to professional
growth/devel opment 4.56 3.42 1.14
2 Positive effect on quality
of instruction 4.52 3.39 1.13
3 Opportunity to participate
in evaluation process 4.58 4.05 0.53
4 Sufficient training for evaluator 4.77 3.59 1.18
5 Competency of evaluator 4.68 3.71 0.97
6 Training for teachers 4.36 3.18 1.18
7 Teacher stress 4.45 3.77 0.68
8 Principal stress 4.29 3.87 0.42
9 Staff development based on evaluation 3.72 2.33 1.39
10 Promotion of professional growth 4.31 3.40 0.91
11 Encouraging quality performance 4.51 3.53 0.98
12 Providing data for decisions 3.68 2.88 0.80
TOTAL MEAN FOR TEACHERS 4.27 3.30 0.97
79
Question 3. What are the differences, if any, between the
perceptions of teachers and principals regarding current and
desired teacher performance evaluation practices in West Virginia?
The current and desired means from the principals' (P) responses
were compared to the current and desired means from the (T)
teachers' responses. ANOVA results (Table 10) indicated
differences between the perceptions of teachers and principals
regarding current and desired teacher performance evaluation
practices in West Virginia. See Table 11 for the comparison of
perceptions of principals and teachers.
Role 1 65.56 65.56 81.10
Status 1 1183.55 1183.55 1464.27
Role & Status 1 40.51 40.51 50.11
Item 12 1972.81 164.40 203.40
Role & Item 12 54.17 4.51 5.59*
Status & Item 12 132.83 11.07 13.70**
Role & Status * Item 12 48.18 4.02 4.97*
*p < .05
**p < .01
80
Table 11 Principals' and Teachers' Desired and Current Means
DESIRED MEANS CURRENT MEANS
ITEM P T D P T D
1 Beneficial to growth 4.54 4.56 0.02 3.58 3.42 0.16
2 Effect on instruction 4.54 4.52 0.02 3.44 3.39 0.05
3 Participate in process 4.58 4.58 0.00 4.61 4.05 0.56
4 Training for evaluators 4.73 4.77 0.04 4.18 3.59 0.59
5 Competency of evaluator 4.68 4.68 0.00 4.32 3.71 0.61
6 Training for teachers 4.45 4.36 0.09 4.00 3.18 0.82
7 Teacher stress 4.18 4.45 0.27 4.08 3.77 0.31
8 Principal stress 4.35 4.29 0.06 3.66 3.87 0.21
9 Staff development 3.84 3.72 0.12 3.06 2.33 0.73
10 Professional growth 4.18 4.31 0.13 3.54 3.40 0.14
11 Encouraging performance 4.66 4.51 0.15 3.83 3.53 0.30
12 Providing data 4.23 3.68 0.55 3.16 2.88 0.28
13 Career awards 3.03 3.03 0.00 1.90 1.78 0.12
TOTAL MEAN 4.31 4.27 0.04 3.64 3.30 0.34
The response to the 26 survey statements concerning current
and desired practice are shown in Appendix F so that a comparison
between percentage responses of principals and teachers can be
made.
81
Question 4. What is the relationship, if any, between
principals' overall satisfaction_withjfhe state mandated teacher
evaluation system in West Virginia and the principals' (a)
perception of competency of the evaluator, (b) perception of
adequacy of the evaluator and evaluatee training,
(c) understanding of the goals and purposes of. teacher, evaluation,
fd) perception of the opportunity for input in the evaluation
process. (&) perception of effects of the teacher evaluation
process on the quality of instruction, (f) perception of emotional
pressure of the evaluation, (a) perception of the value of the
teacher evaluation to professional growth and development of
teachers, (h) perception, of the relationship, between, the
evaluation and individual teacher's staff development plans?
Using Pearson Correlation, a rating on a statement of overall
satisfaction was correlated with the 13 survey items that
pertained to the eight factors. For principals the only
significant correlation was between overall satisfaction and the
positive effect of the evaluation system on the quality of
instruction in the classroom. (See Table 12).
Question 5. What is the relationship. if_any, between
teachers' overall satisfaction with the state mandated.teacher
evaluation system in_West Virginia and the teacher' (a) perception
of the competency of the evaluator, fb) perception of adequacy of
the evaluator and evaluatee training, (c) an understanding of the
gf _teagher. evaluation ,, (d).figrgepti.QQ.o.f.the
82
opportunity for input in the evaluation process, (e) perception of
the effects of the teacher evaluation process the quality of
instruction, ff) perception of the emotional pressures of the
evaluation, fa) perception of the value of the teacher evaluation
to professional growth and development of teachers, h. perception
of the relationship between the evaluation and individual teachers
staff development plans? Using Pearson Correlation, a rating on a
statement of overall satisfaction was correlated with the 13
survey items that pertained to the eight factors. For teachers
there were two significant correlations. As with the principals,
there was a significant correlation between overall satisfaction
and the positive effect of the evaluation system on the quality of
instruction. The other significant correlation was between overall
satisfaction and the evaluation system being beneficial to
professional growth and development. (See Table 12).
teachers and principals in the relationships between overall
satisfaction with the state mandated teacher, evaluation system and
each of the following: (a) perception of competency of the
evaluator, (hi perception of adequacy of the evaluator an
evaluatee training, (c) understanding of the goals and purposes of
teacher evaluation, fd) perception of the opportunity for input in
the evaluation process, (e) perception of effects of the teacher
evaluation process on the quality of instruction, (f) perception
of emotional pressures of the evaluation, (a) perception of the
83
development of teachers, (h) perception of the relationship
between the evaluation and individual teacher's staff development
plans? Data was analyzed by comparing the correlation values for
principals and teachers on each of the items. There were
differences between overall satisfaction and the perceptions of
principals and teachers on all items. (See Table 12).
84
Table 12 Overall Satisfaction Correlated with Survey Items
Item Short Description Principal Teacher Difference
1 Beneficial to professional growth 0.510 0.560* 0.050
2 Positive effect on quality of 0.636* 0.590* 0.046
instruction
3 Opportunity to participate 0.233 0.327 0.094
4 Sufficient training for evaluator 0.266 0.457 0.191
5 Evaluators competent in process 0.192 0.473 0.281
6 Training for teachers in process 0.111 0.307 0.196
7 Minimal stress associated 0.056 0.387 0.331
with evaluation for teacher
8 Minimal stress associated 0.258 0.282 0.024
with evaluation for principal
9 Staff development based on 0.176 0.191 0.015
evaluation
10 Promotion of professional growth 0.347 0.446 0.099
& development reason for evaluation
11 Encouraging quality performance 0.540 0.461 0.079
as a reason for evaluation
12 Providing evaluation data as a 0.263 0.142 0.121
basis for personnel decisions
as reasons for evaluation
*E < .05
85
Question 7. Is there a significant difference in perceptions
of principals' overall satisfaction as predicted by demographic
factors: fa) gender, (b) aae. (c) educational level, (d) years of
experience as a school principal, (e) type of school in which one
is the principal? Data was analyzed by Pearson Correlation. There
were no significant differences in the perceptions as predicted by
the demographic factors.
Question 8. Is there a significant difference in perceptions
of teachers* overall satisfaction as predicted bv demographic
factors: fa) gender, (b) age, fc) educational level, (d) years of
experience as a teacher, (e) type of school in which one teaches?
Data was analyzed by Pearson Correlation. There were no
significant differences in the perceptions as predicted by the
demographic factors.
Question 9. Why have eligible teachers in the sample chosen
not to participate in Phase I and phase II of _the_growth and
development cvcle? Of the 150 teachers who responded to this
section of the survey, 21 (13.64%) did not know if they qualified
to enter the growth and development cycle. One hundred twenty-one
of the respondents qualified to enter the development cycle. Of
this 121, 91 have entered the phase I/II cycle. Teachers and
principals responded to the item asking what they believed to be
the primary reason that teachers do not enter the cycle. These
responses are recorded in Table 13. The percentage represents only
86
those who responded to this item and not the total group of
respondents to the survey.
Table 13 Reasons Given for not Participating
in Phase I/II
Principals Teachers Both
Reason N % of P N % of T % of W
lack of information
or training 4 6.67 11 28.94 15.31
too much paperwork 17 28.33 7 18.42 24.49
would rather have
evaluator observe 30 50.00 15 39.47 45.92
other 9 15.00 5 13.16 14.29
Reasons given for not entering Phase I/II by the
administrators who checked "other" included: administrator's
choice, retiring, feeling too comfortable in the old system, fear
of portfolio, attitude that the evaluation is the job of the
administrator, lack of professionalism, and not understanding the
process. Reasons given by teachers who checked "other" included:
administrator's choice and just haven't.
87
CHAPTER FIVE
FINDINGS, INTERPRETATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Surnnary
This chapter provides a surnnary of the research and
interprets the results of this study as reported in Chapter Four.
It also relates the results to the findings from the literature in
Chapter Two, and makes recommendations based upon those results.
The primary objectives of this study were to gather data
from West Virginia principals and teachers concerning their
perceptions about the West Virginia mandated teacher evaluation
system in order to distinguish between the perceived current and
desired practices in teacher evaluation, to make comparisons
between the perceptions held by principals and teachers, to relate
satisfaction with the system to several factors of the system, to
relate overall satisfaction with the system to demographic
variables, and to find out why teachers have chosen not to enter
the Phase I/II cycle of the teacher evaluation. Nine research
questions were developed for this study after reviewing literature
about perceptions of teacher evaluation in other states. Two
surveys were developed by the researcher to gather both
demographic information and perceptions concerning the evaluation
system. The surveys were sent to 218 principals and 270 teachers.
After two weeks the surveys were sent again. The return rate for
both groups was 57%. The data were analyzed using general linear
models procedures through the SAS system.
88
Findings
Question 1. There are differences in principals' perceptions
of current and desired practices on all factors investigated.
Question 2. There are differences in teachers' perceptions
of current and desired practices in evaluation on all factors
investigated.
Question 3. There are differences between the perceptions of
principals and teachers concerning desired practices on all
factors investigated except career awards, opportunity to
participate, and competency of the evaluator. There are
differences between the perceptions of principals and teachers
concerning perceived current practices on all factors
investigated.
Question 4. For principals the only significant correlation
was between satisfaction and positive effect on instruction.
Question 5. For teachers the two significant correlations
were between satisfaction and positive effect on instruction and
between satisfaction and the benefit to professional growth.
Question 6. There is a difference in the correlation values
between satisfaction and every factor for principals and
teachers.
Question 7. No significant differences were found in
principals' perceptions of satisfaction as predicted by
demographic factors.
89
Question 8. No significant differences were found in
teachers' perceptions of satisfaction as predicted by demographic
factors.
Question 9. Reasons for not participating in Phase I/II
given included: would rather have evaluator observe, lack of
ujiderstanding or training, too much paperwork, fear of portfolio,
attitude that evaluation is job of administrator, too comfortable
with old system, and lack of professionalism.
Interpretations
Research questions one, two, and three were concerned with
the differences between respondents perceptions of the current and
desired teacher performance evaluation practices in West Virginia.
The desired practice means for all but two of the thirteen
practices as perceived by principals were at 4.0 or above, while
the current practice means were at 4.0 or above on only five of
the thirteen practices. For teachers the desired practice means
for ten of the practices were 4.0 or above but only one current
practice mean was at 4.0 or above. Obviously in West Virginia in
most areas neither principals nor teachers are finding the current
practice in evaluation to be the desired practice.
In two areas, opportunity to participate and level of
stress, both principals and teachers indicate satisfaction.
Principals (96%) and teachers (98%) indicated that teachers should
have an opportunity to participate in the evaluation process.
Ninety-nine percent of the principals and 84% of the teachers
90
perceive that West Virginia teachers do have the opportunity to
participate in the process. Eighty-three percent of the principals
and 93% of the teachers believed there should be minimal stress
associated with evaluations for the teacher. Ninety-two percent of
both principals and teachers believed there should be minimal
stress for the evaluator. Eighty-two percent of the principals and
77% of the teachers reported minimal stress for teachers with 71%
of principals and 79% of teachers reporting minimal stress for
evaluators associated with the evaluation process.
In this study 100% of the principals and 98% of the teachers
indicated that evaluators should be competent in the process.
Ninety-four percent of the principals reported they were
competent, but only 65% of the teachers reported their evaluators
were competent in the process. One hundred percent of both
principals and teachers believed principals should have training
in the evaluation process. Eighty-six percent of the principals
said they had sufficient training but only 58% of the teachers
said the evaluators had sufficient training. Ninety four percent
of the principals and 91% of the teachers said teachers needed
training so they knew what to expect when evaluated. Eighty-one
percent of the principals thought their staffs had sufficient
training but again only 48% of the teachers believed their
training had been sufficient. From these results it can be
concluded that both principals and teachers believed training is
necessary and that the evaluator needs to be competent in the
91
process. Principals seemed to think they are competent and that
training has been sufficient for both principals and teachers
while teachers seemed to think more training is needed for both
principals and teachers.
Policy 5310 originally stated four major purposes of
evaluation in West Virginia. These purposes were: to improve the
quality of education, to provide information for employees to
improve performance, to determine those employees eligible for
future incentive systems, and to provide information to be used as
a basis for sound personnel decisions. In its amended form
effective July, 1992, Policy 5310 stated the specified purposes
for evaluation in West Virginia are to promote professional growth
and development and quality performance; and to provide data as
one basis for sound personnel decisions.
Eighty-five percent of principals and 87% of the teachers
who responded to the survey indicated a belief that promotion of
professional growth and development should be a reason for
evaluation. Sixty-four percent of principals and only 50% of the
teachers indicated that professional growth and development are
reasons for evaluation in West Virginia.
Both principals and teachers overwhelmingly (99%) supported
the idea that encouraging quality performance should be a reason
for evaluation. Seventy-two percent of the principals perceived
that encouraging quality performance is a reason for evaluation in
West Virginia but only 58% of the teachers agreed.
92
Providing evaluation data as a basis for personnel decisions
should be a reason for evaluation according to 88% of the
principals and 64% of the teachers. Again the perceptions of
current practices did not agree with the desired practice. Only
48% of principals and 24% of teachers indicate that evaluations in
West Virginia are used for providing data as a basis for personnel
decisions.
With the revised Policy 5310, career awards and merit pay
are not mentioned as reasons for evaluations. Only 40% of both
principals and teachers thought career awards and merit pay should
be reasons for evaluation and even fewer, 6% of principals and 3%
of teachers thought they are reasons for evaluation.
While it appeared that both principals and teachers
understand the purposes of evaluation in West Virginia, fewer than
60% of the teachers saw evaluations as encouraging quality
performance, only 50% of the teachers saw evaluation as achieving
the purpose of promoting professional growth and development, and
less than 30% of them saw evaluations as providing data for
personnel decisions. If these are the goals which are to be
achieved through evaluation, then training in how to use
evaluations to achieve such goals is needed.
Ninety-five percent of the principals and 96% of the
teachers in the survey indicated a belief that the evaluation
system should have a positive effect on the quality of
93
instruction, but only 58% of the principals and 55% of the
teachers perceive the evaluation as having that positive effect.
Ninety-four percent of the principals and 95% of the teachers in
the current study indicated a belief that the evaluation system
should be beneficial to professional growth and development of
teachers. Sixty-four percent of the principals and 58% of the
teachers believed that to be the current practice in West
Virginia. Sixty-eight percent of principals and 73% of teachers
agreed that staff development or inservice programs should be
based upon evaluation results. But only 33% of the principals and
10% of the teachers reported that staff development or inservice
programs in West Virginia are based upon the evaluation. Efforts
must be made to connect evaluations and staff development and
staff development to improved instruction.
Research questions four, five, and six were concerned with
discovering any relationship between overall satisfaction with the
teacher evaluation system and any of eight specific factors. While
there was a positive correlation for all factors, the only
correlation that was significant for both principals and teachers
was between satisfaction and the positive effect of evaluations on
the quality of instruction. For teachers, the other significant
correlation was between satisfaction and the benefits of the
evaluation to professional growth and development. Since most of
the eight factors had only one statement to which it was related
94
it is not advisable to make any predictions of satisfaction based
upon responses to the 13 statements.
Research questions seven and eight attempted to find any
difference in perceptions of overall satisfaction based upon the
demographic factors of gender, age, educational level, years of
experience as a principal or teacher, and type of school in which
one works. While there were no significant differences in
satisfaction based upon demographic factors, there were some
interesting findings. Over half of the respondents were satisfied
with the teacher evaluation system. Sixty-nine percent of the
principals and 56% of the teachers indicated satisfaction with the
system. Only about seven percent of the principals were undecided
as to whether they were satisfied cortpared with 20% of the
teachers. Sixty-six percent of the male principals, 56% of the
male teachers, 79% of the female principals, and 56% of the female
teachers were satisfied with teacher evaluation.
In every age category at least 65% of the principals and 50%
of the teachers were satisfied with the evaluation system. For
both principals and teachers the age category with the most
dissatisfied respondents was the 41-45 year old category which had
30% dissatisfaction for principals and 33% for teachers.
Every educational level category for principals had at least
50% satisfaction with 75% satisfaction reported by those in the
MA+30 category. For teachers the lowest satisfaction rate, 47%,
95
was reported by those with BA+15. The highest level of
satisfaction, 62%, was reported by those with MA+30.
Principals with three to five years of experience reported
100% satisfaction. Since there were only seven principals in this
category, the results may not be applicable to other principals in
the population who are in the three to five years experience
category. For teachers, those in the 11-15 years of experience
reported the greatest percentage of satisfaction, 78%.
For principals, there was little difference in the levels of
satisfaction reported by the type of school in which one works.
Seventy-two percent of the principals who work at the elementary
level, 69% of those who work at the senior high level, and, 61% of
those at the middle/junior high level reported satisfaction. For
teachers at the elementary and middle/junior high level there was
little difference in the satisfaction reported. Sixty-two percent
of the elementary teachers reported satisfaction and 57% of the
middle/junior high did so. But at the senior high level only 31%
reported satisfaction with 26% of the high school teachers
undecided.
The final research question asked why eligible teachers in
the sample have chosen not to participate in phase I and phase II
of the growth and development cycle. It is evident from the
answers and comments that there is still much to be learned about
this part of the evaluation. According to Policy 5310, a teacher
entering the seventh year of teaching has the option of moving to
96
the two year professional growth and development cycle that
alternates between phase I and phase II provided that performance
ratings were satisfactory during the previous two evaluations, a
professional growth and development plan is developed, and the
teacher remains in the same or similar position for two
consecutive evaluations. Sane respondents indicated they had been
forced by their administrator to enter the cycle against their
will. One respondent could not understand why the administrator
had removed him/her from the cycle. Almost 14% of the respondents
did not know if they qualified to enter the cycle.
Interestingly, just as teachers noted lack of training in
part A of the survey, again they site lack of training. Twenty-
eight percent of the teacher respondents who had not entered the
growth and development cycle indicated this lack of information or
training as a reason for not entering the cycle compared to only
7% of the principals who felt this was a primary reason why
teachers do not enter the cycle.
Recommendations
With the low percentage of teachers reporting adequate
training in the evaluation process and with the apparent lack of
understanding concerning the Phase I/Phase II cycle, training is
the major reccnmendation from this researcher. A close reading of
the ccnments from teachers will substantiate a need for more
training. As was reported earlier in chapter four, in some cases
neither teachers nor principals understand the process for
97
entering Phasel/II. Some teachers are forced to enter. Time lines
which are developed by individual counties are not uniform and
teachers expressed dissatisfaction with them. The perceptions of
some teachers that the evaluation is not used for any meaningful
purpose has left those teachers wondering why evaluate at all.
It is reconmended that officials of the West Virginia State
Department of Education implement further mandatory training in
the evaluation process for both principals and teachers. Members
of local boards of education need to incorporate time in the
school calendar for training staffs about the evaluation process.
Faculty senates need to devote a portion of their time to updating
their knowledge about the state evaluation system. College
professors who are training administrators currently working in
West Virginia need to add a component on the West Virginia teacher
evaluation system to their required classes. The literature
recommends that staff development and evaluations be tied
together. Sixty-eight percent of the principals and 73% of the
teachers desired this as an evaluation practice. With the low
percentage of teachers and principals reporting this to be the
current practice, it is recomnended that within the training
sessions, ways of tying staff development to evaluations be
examined.
Since there is no state approved evaluation of the teacher
evaluation program, it is recommended that one be adopted.
98
Individual principals and teachers or local faculty senates should
be given opportunity for input in evaluating the current process.
Future Research
This study revealed that while both teachers and principals
believed that evaluation should be beneficial to professional
growth and development, contribute to improved instruction, and
encouraging quality performance, neither group perceived it as
doing so. Future research could center upon how principals and
teachers believe the evaluation could be changed so that it would
be beneficial to professional growth and development, contribute
to improved instruction, and encourage quality performance. Future
research could also examine methods of training in evaluation
procedures that have been used for those respondents who perceived
they had been adequately trained as compared to methods used for
those respondents who perceived they had not been adequately
trained to see if the difference is in the actual training or in
the perceptions of the respondents. Finally, examination could be
made of the methods of training in evaluation procedures that have
been used for principals whose teachers believe their principals
have received adequate training to see if the difference is in the
actual training or in the perceptions of the respondents.
99
REFERENCES
100
Airasian, P. (1993). Teacher assessment: Seme issues for
principals. NASSP Bulletin. 77, (555), 55-65.
Airasian, P. Gullickson, A. (1994). Examination of teacher self-

assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 8.
195-203.
Armiger, M. L. (1981). The political realities of teacher

evaluation. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation
(292-302). California: National Council on Measurement in
Education.
Ashbaugh, C. R. & Hasten, K. (1987). Should teachers be involved

in teacher appraisal? NASSP Bulletin.71. (500), 50-53.
Barber, L. (1990). Self-assessment. In J. Millman & L. Darling-

Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation (216-
228). Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
Beckham, J. C. (1981). Legal aspects of teacher evaluation.

Topeka, KS: National Organization on Legal Problems in
Education.
Beebe, R. (1987). Developing sound performance appraisal

procedures. NASSP Bulletin. 71. (497), 96-101.
Bird, T. (1990). The schoolteacher's portfolio: An essay on

possibilities. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The
new handbook of teacher evaluation (241-256). Newberry Park,
CA: Sage.
Black, S. (1993). How teachers are reshaping evaluation

procedures. Educational Leadership. 51. (2), 38-42.
Bolton, D. L. (1973). Selection and evaluation of teaching.

Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Boyd, R. (1990). Improving teaching evaluations [On-line].

Available: ERIC ED 315 431
Brandt, Ron. (1996). On a new direction for teacher evaluation: A

conversation with Tom McGreal. Educational Leadership. 53. (6),
30-33.
Brizendine, E.L. (1987). California educational policy

implementation: The case of the Stull Act. Dissertation
abstracts International
Brock, S. C. (1981). Evaluation-based teacher development. In

Jason Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (229-
243).California: National Council on Measurement in Education.
101
Burke, P., & Lind, K. G. (1987). Performance assessments
techniques for teacher career ladder advancement. NASSP
Bulletin. 71. (500), 27-35.
Buser, R. & Pace, V. (1988). Personnel evaluation premises,

realities, and constraints. NASSP Bulletin. 72. (512), 84-87.
Campbell, L. (1987, September). Evaluating teachers. Streamlined

Seminar. 6 . National Association of Secondary School
Principals.
Campbell, R. F., Bridges, E.M., & Nystrand, R. 0. (1977).

Introduction to educational administration (5th ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Castetter, W. B. (1981). The personnel function in educational

administration (3rd, ed.), New York: MacMillan.
Christen, W. & Murphy, T. (1987). Inservice training and peer

evaluation: An integrated program for faculty development.
NASSP Bulletin. 71. (500), 10-18.
Cilo, D. (1988). CotTmon sense and candor in supervision. NASSP

Bulletin. 72. (505), 99-101.
Clark, Carolyn (1985). A comprehensive program of evaluation and

professional development: A working model. Denver, CO: National
Council of States for Inservice Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No ED 270 866)
Clark, D. (1993). Teacher evaluation a review of the literature

with implications for educators. ERIC Document ED 359174
Conley, D. T. & Dixon, K. M. (1990). The evaluation report: A tool

for teacher growth. NASSP Bulletin, 74. (527), 7-14.
Cornett, L. (1985). Trends and emerging issues in career ladder

plans. Educational Leadership. 43. (3). 6-10.
Dagley, D. & Orso, J. (1991). Integrating sunmative, formative

models of evaluation. NASSP Bulletin. 75. (536), 72-82.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Teacher evaluation in transition:

Emerging roles and evolving methods. In Jason Millman & Linda
Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation
(17-32). Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A., & Pease,S. (1983). Teacher

evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the
literature. Review of Educational Research. 53. (3), 285-328.
102
DePasquale, D. (1990). Evaluating tenured teachers: A practical
approach. NASSP Bulletin. 74. (527), 19-24.
Doyle, K. (1983). Evaluating teaching. Massachusetts: DC Heath.
DuFour, R. & Berkey, T. (1995). The principal as staff developer.

Journal of Staff Development, 16, (4), 1-6.
Duke, D., & Stiggins, R. (1990). Beyond minimum competence:

Evaluation for professional development. In J. Millman & L.
Ellis, T. (1985). Motivating teachers for excellence. [On-line].

Available ERIC Digest number six.
Ellis, T. (1985). Teacher competency: What administrators can do.

[On-line]. Available: ERIC Digest number nine.
Ellis, T. (1986, April). Teacher evaluation. Research roundup. 2,

National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Eye, G. , Netzer, L., & Krey, R. (1971). Supervision of

instruction. New York: Harper & Row.
Ferguson, H. L.(1990). A study of the perceptions of teachers and

administrators toward various aspects of the Missouri
performance based teacher evaluation program (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1990). Dissertation
Abstracts International A 51/10, 3285.
Freel, John G. (1987). A study of teacher evaluation as it affects

the attitude and performance of teachers (Masters thesis,
Central Michigan University, 1987). Masters Abstracts
International. 26/03. 289.
Freiberg, H. (1987). Teacher self-evaluation and principal

supervision. NASSP Bulletin. 71. (498), 85-92.
Gainey, D. (1990). Teacher evaluation and supervision for school

improvement: Myth or reality? NASSP Bulletin. 74. (524), 14-
19.
Glass, G. (1990). Using student test scores to evaluate teachers.

In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of
teacher evaluation (229-240). Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
Good, T., & Mulryan, C. (1990). Teacher ratings: A call for

teacher control and self-evaluation. In J. Millman & L.
103
Gordon, B. (1992). Making clinical supervision a reality: Steps
toward implementation. NASSP Bulletin. 76. (542), 46-51.
Haefele, D. L. (1981). Teacher interviews. In J. Millman (Ed.),

Handbook of teacher evaluation (41-57). California:
National Council on Measurement in Evaluation.
Halstead, D.S. (1988). The effectiveness of a teacher evaluation

process as perceived by teachers and building-level
administrators (Doctoral dissertation, Portland State
University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International. 50/01.
35.
Hartzell, G. (1995). Helping administrators learn to avoid seven

ccnmon employee performance appraisal errors. Journal of Staff
Development. 16 (2), 32-37.
Hazard, W. (1993) Legal aspects of teacher evaluation. Presented

at the 39th annual convention National Organization on Legal
Problems in Education. (ERIC Document reproduction Service No
377182)
Henson, B. & Hall, P. (1993). Linking performance evaluation and

career ladder programs: Reactions of teachers and principals in
one district. The Elementary School Journal. 93. (4), 323-
345.
Hipps, E., & Halpin, G. (1992). The difference in teachers' and

principals' general job stress and stress related to
performance-based accreditation. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the mid-South Educational Research Association,
Knoxville, TN. (ERIC Document reproduction Service No Ed 353
345)
Hunter, M. (1986). Let's eliminate the preobservation conference.

Educational Leadership, 43. (6). 69-70.
Isenberg, A. P. (1990). Evaluating teachers-scme questions and

some considerations. NASSP Bulletin. 74. (527), 16-18.
Iwanicki, E. F. (1981). Contract plans: A professional growth-

oriented approach to evaluating teacher performance. In J.
Millman (Ed.) Handbook of teacher evaluation (203-228).
California: National Council on Measurement in Education.
Iwanicki, E. F. (1990). Teacher evaluation for school improvement.

In J. Millman 8 L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of
teacher evaluation (158-171). Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
Jacobson, P. B., Logsdon, J. D., 6 Wiegman, R. R. (1973). The

principalship: New perspectives. New Jersey: Prentice-Hal1.
104
Joki, R. (1982). Make teacher canrpetency your policy. The American
School Board Journal. 169 (11), 32, 52.
Kelly, E. & Taylor, B. (1990). Administrative role conflict in the

supervision and evaluation of secondary teachers. NASSP
Bulletin. 74. (523), 103-106.
Kerlinger, P. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. Florida:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Koehler, M. (1990). Self-assessment in the evaluation process.

HaSSL.BMllfitini-7.
4 r (527), 40-44.
Koemer, T. F. (1990). This month. NASSP Bulletin. 74. (527), v
Lawler, D. W. (1992). an examination of teacher evaluation in Iowa

(Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, 1992).
Dissertation Abstracts International. A 53/03. 677.
Leffler, J. C. (1990). Policy into practice A study of legislative

impact on administrative practices in Washington Schools.
Dissertation Abstracts International abstract only.
Lordon, John (1986). In defense of the preobservation conference.

Educational Leadership. 43 (6), 70-71.
Lorenz, J. (1982). The post evaluation conference-your demand for

excellence. Kappa Delta Pi Record. 18 (2), 85-88.
Lyman, Lawrence (1988). Building trust in supervision and

evaluation. A workshop for instructional supervisors. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, Boston, MA: (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 295 297)
Manatt, R. (1988). Teacher performance evaluation: A total systems

approach. In S. Stanley & j. Popham (Eds.), Teacher evaluation:
Six prescriptions for success. USA: Association for
Supervision and Development of Curriculum.
Marks, J., Stoops, E., S King-Stoops, J. (1987). Handbook of

educational supervision. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Massey, D. E. (1988). A survey on the perceptions of teachers and

administrators toward the North Carolina teacher performance
appraisal instrument in selected Region VI schools.
Dissertation Abstracts International
105
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
McGreal, T. (1988). Evaluation for enhancing instruction: Linking
teacher evaluation and staff development. In S. Stanley & W. J.
Popham (Eds.), Teacher evaluation: Six prescriptions for
success. USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
McKenna, B. (1981). Context/environment effects in teacher

evaluation. In J. Millman (Ed.) Handbook of teacher evaluation
Education.
McLaughlin, M. (1990). Embracing contraries: Implementing and

sustaining teacher evaluation. In J. Millman & L. Darling-
Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation
McNeil, J. (1981). Politics of teacher evaluation. In J. Millman

(Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (272-291). California:
National Council on Measurement in Education.
McQuarrie, F. & Wood, F. (1991). Supervision, staff development,

and evaluation connections. Theory Into Practice. 30. (2), 91-
96.
Millman, J. (1981). Student achievement as a measure of teacher

competence. In J. Millman Handbook of teacher evaluation
Education.
Milner, J. (1991). Suppositional style an teacher evaluation. Phi

Delta Kappan, 72. (6), 464-469.
Natriello, G.(1990). Intended and unintended consequences:

Purposes and effects of teacher evaluation. In J. Millman and
L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.) The new handbook of teacher
evaluation. 35-45. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
Neal, J. (1989). Faculty evaluation: Its purposes and

effectiveness [On-line]. Available: ERIC ED 308 800
Paguch, M. C. & Rath, J. (1983). Testing teachers: Analysis and

recommendations. Journal of Teacher Education. 34. 37-43.
Peterson, K. (1990) Assistance and assessment for beginning

teachers. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new
handbook of teacher evaluation (104-115). Newberry Park, CA:
Sage.
106
Pfeifer, R. S. (1986). Integrating teacher evaluation and staff
development: An organizational approach. California: Stanford
University, Institute for Research on Educational Finance and
Governance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 270 506)
Popham, J. (1986). Teacher evaluations: Mission impossible.

Principal, 65, (4), 56-58.
Roberson, Frances R. & Matthews, Kenneth M. (1988). How principals

can cope with stress. NASSP Bulletin. 72.(509). 79-85.
Rapczynski, F. E. (1989). A pattern study of the Connecticut

Teacher evaluation law: A comparison of stated goals to
perceived practices and outcomes in suburban school districts
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1989).
Dissertation Abstracts International. A 50/08. 2338.
Rooney, J. (1993). Teacher evaluation: No more "super" vision.

Educational Leadership. 51. (2), 43-44.
Root, D. & Overly, D. (1990). Successful teacher evaluation-key

elements for success. NASSP Bulletin. 74. (527), 34-38.
Rothberg, R. & Fenner, M. (1991). Teacher perceptions of teacher

assessment. Clearing House. 64. (272-274).
Ruckel, C. (1993). Certificated personnel performance evaluation

system survey report. Denver: Colorado Department of
Education.
Ruckel, C. & Hennes, J. (1994). Certificated personnel performance

evaluation system survey report. Denver, Colorado: State
Department of Education . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No ED 374 106)
Rudnicki, J. W. (1989). Survey of large California suburban school

district teachers regarding evaluation practices. Dissertation
Abstracts International abstract only.
Sapone, C. & Sheeran, T. (1991). A fourth wave model for

supervision and evaluation. NASSP Bulletin. 75. (536), 66-70.
School Laws of Nest Virginia (1993). 274-275. Michie:

Charlottesville, VA.
Schweitzer, S. M. (1990). Performance-based teacher evaluation in

the state of Missouri: Teachers' perspectives (Doctoral
dissertation, southern Illinois University at Carbondale,
1990). Dissertation Abstracts International. A 52/07. 2359.
107
Sclan, E. (1994). Performance evaluation for experienced teachers:
An overview of state polices. Trends and issues paper number
ten. Teachers College, Columbia University.
Searfoss, Lyndon W. & Enz, Billie J. (1996). Can teacher

evaluation reflect holistic instruction? Educational
Leadership. 53. (6), 38-41.
Seldin, C. (1988). Ethics, evaluation, and the secondary

principal. NASSP Bulletin, 72. (512), 9-11.
Setteducati, D. (1995). Portfolio self-assessment for teachers: A

reflection on the Farmingdale. Journal of Staff Development.
16. (3), 2-5.
Sheerin, J.(1991). Implementing a staff development program. NASSP

Bulletin. 75. (536), 8-15.
Sparks, D. (1992). The keys to effective staff development.

Principal, 71, (3), 43-44.
Stobbe, C. (1993). Professional partnerships. Educational

Leadership. 51. (2), 40-41.
Stodolsky, S. (1990). Classroom observation. In J. Millman & L.

Darling-Hanmond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation
Strike, K. & Bull, B. (1981). Fairness and the legal context of

teacher evaluation. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher
evaluation (303-343). California: National Council on
Measurement in Education.
Timke, R. A. (1992). Perceptions of teachers, principals, and

superintendents concerning mandatory teacher evaluation in
selected Illinois elementary school districts (Doctoral
dissertation, Southern University at Carbondale, 1992),
Dissertation Abstracts International, a 54/08. 2839.
Tracy, S. & Smeaton, P. (1993). State-mandated assisting and

assessing teachers: Levels of state control. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education. 6. 219-234.
Travers, R. M. (1981). Criteria of good teaching. In Jason

Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (14-22).
California: National council on Measurement in Education.
Trochinski, G. (1988). Teacher attitudes toward evaluation. Lake

Geneva, IW: Association of Wisconsin School administrators.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No Ed 315 849)
108
Wagner, L, and Wagner, J. (1984). A chance to see ourselves: A
practical look at student evaluations of teachers. Kappa Delta
Pi Record. 20. (4), 124-126.
Walen, E. & DeRose, M. (1993). The power of peer appraisals.

White, K., Wyne, M . , Stuck, G., & Coop, H. (1987). Assessing

teacher performance using an observation instrument based on
research findings. NASSP Bulletin. 71. (497), 89-95.
White, R. (1990). Teachers' perceptions of teacher evaluation

practices in selected schools in West Indies Union of Seventh-
Day Adventists (Doctoral dissertation, Lama Linda University,
1990). Dissertation Abstracts International., 52/01, 51
Williamson, E. & Campbell, L. (1987). Stress in the principal ship:

What causes it? NASSP Bulletin. 71. (500), 109-112.
Winston, P. (1984). Teachers encouraged to participate in

reforms. Education Week. 4. 12.
Witherspoon, E. (1989). Redefining teacher evaluation and staff

development: An ownership model for professional improvement.
Hobart, IN: (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 313 335)
Wolf, Kenneth (1996). Developing an effective teaching portfolio.

Wood, C. (1992). Toward more effective teacher evaluation: Lessons

from naturalistic inquiry. NASSP Bulletin. 76. (542), 52-59.
Wuhs, S. & Manatt, R. (1983). The pace of mandated teacher

evaluation picks up. The American School Board Journal. 169.
(11), 28.
109
APPENDICES
110
Appendix A
Appendix A is a copy of the West Virginia Teacher Observation/Data
Collection Form. The Teacher Evaluation Form is the same except
there are places to check whether or not the teacher is
satisfactory at each performance criteria.
W at V if|ia t Bontf o f B te u iM
M icy 5310
T S A C H tt OSSUVATKM/DATA COLLCCTION
iMteaMaa _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ftiN 11 Nil il|M
OMtaac t a a lli M k te r ta ta ta .
i nactAMtarmar
A . Sa WU IM T lU C nQ N ON
14 C U S ItO O tfO iM A J f
Ml
A fO LLOW I U TASU SM U SCHOOL D U C H U N I

n o c s o u u m u a i m i m in s * n w n x r
o . im HIGH fO W TW r C XTftC TATU M N *
A 1MCOUKAGU AM ) AOCNOWLXOGU W M V1IXJU.

fTU D C N Tl' A C C O M ftU M M V m A M u n o n u i
M IU VKM L
* iu*nniMiniMAr*iBMai)UT4au
* A c c o M ja o o ^ m u m n n ~ 1 i t ^ in r ?
ft C U A I U t llO t b in A I M M
n u t w ifo a n u a m ot
N ftfO ftM U iC S c a n u u IN MMJ> K W T M a y H OUCUMftMTSB IN iU M O M U VAH O N o r IN m ttC n O N

Cw ! im N r
111
///. in str u c tio n al m an a g e m e n t systems COMMENTS:
O t(M iia M ti* |ic > fa t ic * d iii| la m u u m iu ih c u *

o f lik w a M d M iM U M iO M l lio M la ia a U M U u d u l
toomuit.
A . PREPARES AND IMPLEMENTS LS8SON KANS.
S. ICG INS LESSON OR INSTRUCTIONAL
ACTIVITY WITH A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS
MATERIALS AS APPROPRIATE.
c has m a te ria ls , s u p p lie s and e q u ip
m e n t READY AT THE START OF THE
LESSON OR INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY.
0 . INTRODUCES THE INSTRUCTIONAL
ACTIVITY AND SPECIFIES INSTRUCTIONAL
OBJECTIVES.
E . DIRECTS STUDENTS TO BE ON TASK
QUICKLY AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH
INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY.
F . PRESENTS READING. WRITING. SPEAKING.

AND LISTENING STRATEGIES USING
CONCEPTS AND LANGUAGE WHICH STUDENTS
UNDERSTAND.
C . PROVIDES RELEVANT EXAMPLES AND
DEMONSTRATIONS TO ILLUSTRATE CONCEPTS
AND SKILLS.
H . ASSIGNS DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE
TASKS.
L PROVIDES INSTRUCTIONAL PACING THAT

ENSURE STUDENT UNDERSTANDING.
J. MAXIMIZES STUDENT TIME-ON TASK.
K . MAKES EFFECTIVE TRANSITIONS BETWEEN

INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES.
L SUMMARIZES THE MAIN POINT(S) O f THE

INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY.
M . ENCOURACES STUDENTS TO EXPRESS IDEAS

CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY.
N . INCORPORATES HIGHER LEVEL THINKING

SKILLS.
O . ASSISTS STUDENTS TO DEVELOP

PRODUCTIVE WORK HABITS AND STUDY
SKILLS.
P. PROVIDES REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES FOR
STUDENTS.
112
IV. STUDENT HIOCMESS COMMENTS:
Gather*. uora. md moniion data (tKad to ttudant

learning for uae in aaacaaing program lovurd achieving
the innruclamal objective*.
A. Follow* grading poiki** and regulation*.
B. Maintain* accural* and compiera Uuden*

racerda.
C MONITORS AND EVALUATES STUOSNT

PROGRESS.
D. Provide* Feedback on audon'a work.
E Mooilon itudaal inaadinr*.
V. COMMUNICATION COMMENTS:
Communicate* with aludcnu. parent*. educational pcraonnal.

and othara. U iiliica itandard (rammar. liaiciung ik illa . and
clarity in the pnacntation at idea*.
A. Communicaua tiudanl progtaa* according to *t*bli*hed
proceduia* and policia*.
B. Communicatee regularly and affectively with undent*,
co-arortan, paratafguaidian*. andconuaunity.
C Follow* confidentiality procedure* tagarding atndaan,
paranla/guardiana. and fa lio * ataff namban.
D . SPEAKS AND WRITES STANDARD ENGUSH

CLEARLY, CORRECTLY, AND DISTINCTLY.
E Drtannine* and u tilin a appropriate community reroute**.
VI. MOFESSIONAl WORK HAMITS COMMENTS:
Dcmonavaie* behavior which reflect* catabiiahed profeuional

rm poniibiluiee.
A. Adhara* to aatahliihnd law*, poiki**.

rui*. and regulation*.
B. Interact* appropriately with other

dUCAlftOMi pcflOMtfL
C Participataa in activitia* which

foatar profeaaioaai growth.
D. la punctual with report*, grade*,

record*, and in reporting to work.
E Perform* aaaignad duliae.
P. Strive* to meetcoeary/achoot goal*.
113
Appendix B
Content Related Validity Panel of Experts
Dr. Michael Cunningham-Assistant Professor of Educational
Leadership at West Virginia Graduate Col lege-Institute, WV.
Dr. Teresa Hardman-Curriculum Director George Washington High
School-Charleston, WV.
Dr. Paul Leary-Professor of Leadership Studies West Virginia
Graduate College-Institute, WV.
Linda McCall-Itinerant Resource Teacher Grandview Elementary-
Charieston, WV.
Shirley Miller-Computer Instructor Pt. Pleasant High School-
Point Pleasant, WV.
Karen Bare-Oldham-El ementary Teacher Kanawha City Elementary-
Charleston, WV.
Linda Roberts-Itinerant Teacher of the Gifted-St. Albans, WV.
Patricia Series-Reading Teacher and Adjunct Instructor for West
Virginia Graduate College-Institute, WV.
Debbie Simon-Principal-Frametown, WV.
Carolyn Thompson-Associate Dean for Student Affairs West
Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine-Lewisburg, WV
Beth Triplett-VP for Enrollment/Dean of Students University of
Charieston-Char1eston, WV
Tom Tull-Assistant Principal-Winfield, WV
Jim Vamer-Guidance Counselor Eastern Greenbrier Jr. High-
Lewisburg, WV
114
Appendix C
Education Administration
' M C
West Virginia University
College of Human Resources and Education
August 31, 1996
Dear Colleague:
In 1992 the West Virginia State Board of Education amended

Policy 5310 Performance Evaluation of School Personnel with
specific guidelines for evaluations of professional personnel.
As part of a doctoral dissertation study, I am currently
conducting research on this evaluation policy. I am very
interested in acquiring a better understanding of teachers'
and principals' perceptions of the policy and will share
the results of my study with the State Department of
Education.
You are part of a sample of teachers and principals whose

names were randomly selected to be participants in this
study. Although your participation is entirely voluntary,
your cooperation in completing and returning this survey
will be deeply appreciated. Any item that you do not wish
to complete may be left blank. There will be no identification
made of the respondents and confidentiality is assured.
Please view this as your opportunity to express your opinions

about the professional evaluation policy. Being an educator
myself, I realize the value of every minute of your time;
therefore, I have tried to keep the survey as short as
possible, yet make it meaningful. Please return your response
by September 15, in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped
envelope. If you wish to receive a copy of the results,
mention that fact in your comments and I will send you a
copy when the study is completed. Thank you for your time
and consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
5?- 'i&e^LTTj
Sarah L. Brown
304 293-3707/2467 606 Allen Hall a P.O. Box 6122 o Morgantown. WV 26506-6122
Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Institution
115
Appendix D
Respondents to the survey were asked to make any comments about
any aspect of the state evaluation plan or about the survey.
Following are the carments from selected respondents. Any
information that might identify a respondent or a particular
school have been emitted.
Principal's comments:
Evaluation in our county seems to work for principal and

teacher-1 particularly like having an avenue by which I can praise
and acknowledge a job well done.
Evaluation process is intended for a worthwhile purpose, but

the correction of unsatisfactory evaluatees and/or their eventual
dismissal is so time consuming and often non productive and
lacking of central office support that little or nothing gets done
except in the most "severe" of cases and often then they still
slip by.
A single administrator in an elementary school with 350-400

students has a difficult time finding quality time to follow
through the evaluation process.
The old evaluation instrument was more effective.
I still think every teacher needs to be "evaluated" at least

every three years just to keep performance in the classroom at a
high level. It makes my job harder, but i think it needs to be
done especially if merit pay is involved.
I still feel tenured teachers have tremendous security where

one could employ a young dynamic teacher that might do better.
When is the last time that you heard of a sub par teacher getting
released?
The intent is good, however, those who enter phase I and II

of the process (a large percentage) don't realize the importance
of professional growth. Status quo unfortunately becomes the norm.
People are fearful of change and reluctant to try something new.
The new plan is much better than the old system.
I am very pleased with the instructional section (III) of

the evaluation instrument.
116
Evaluation results ought to be counted as more than one
seventh of decisions on qualifications for new positions. Right
now the results of evaluations have almost no impact on the
promotion and hiring process.
I have found the growth and development cycle to refocus the

attention on teacher improvement and a building of a trust in
putting the plan together in Phase I. APL training in evaluators
pre conferencing, observations, and observation meeting has been
very effective.
There should be specific behaviors in the classroom that an

evaluator is looking for taught in the class.
I really like Phase I and II of the evaluation process for

more experienced teachers. It gives them input/power over their
evaluation.
If a good teacher will set a goal each year he/she would

like to obtain, I feel you will get a better teacher.
I never did receive good training on how my own evaluation

was to be handled until I attended a state level meeting by my own
choice.
Too much paperwork involved. Observations and evaluations

can be accomplished with much less paperwork, writing, etc. The
form County was using before the state plan was excellent.
Great improvement from the previous system; however,

evaluations are basically a meaningless process.
Need follow-up/refresher course on the evaluation process.
Too time consuming and cumbersome!
I feel teachers should complete the cycles in this fashion:

teacher evaluation/Phase I/Phase II and then start over after 3
years. Principals need to get in and evaluate performance more
often.
We should not have to do any evaluation on teachers who are

competent and successful.
The current evaluation process utilizes input from teachers

and evaluator-there is opportunity for a "team effort" in
professional growth.
Evaluation form too detailed and involved. Can be condensed.
117
I think that this system is a great improvement over the
previous system, but I hope it doesn't stop here. Every system
needs to change constantly.
Principals and assistant principals need additional

training. They need samples of written statements for the
evaluation and Phase I. Phase II was never clear as to the
administrators role, if any. Also work needed on providing Legal
Improvement Plans and its relationship to Improvement Team. Also
what must be in place in the total process to dismiss a teacher.
This was never made clear.
This is a difficult task, no matter what system is used.

Evaluation is not always used for positive things.
The hardest thing to convey to teachers was the autonomy

associated with Phase II. They wanted to write goals based on the
components of the standard evaluation not the personal goals
unique to each individual.
I feel the evaluation process has improved over the past few
years.
The teachers who need to inprove are not the ones who
recognize it. With the current evaluation instrument, it can take
years to see a turnaround! Thanks for the opportunity to voice an
opinion.
Teachers who are not competent feel that they should be in

Phase I because everyone else is. They don't like anyone in their
roam and complain to state associations who in turn compel
principals to justify reasons why they are in performance areas.
Principals have tendencies to perform only tasks that are

required. Phase I and II evaluations require less time of
administrators than does performance based.
The evaluation process still does not allow avenues to

address certain teacher performance standards in a timely and
practical manner.
Too much paperwork. Too hard to get rid of bad teachers

(almost impossible).
Very little accountability for Phase II, but it is easier to

have teachers on Phase I and II than to do formal evaluations on
every staff member.
118
Contents from teachers:
It appears that the evaluation process is not taken

seriously by administrators or educators. Who has time for
developing strategic plans? Time is essential!!
I don't have enough information on the WV teacher evaluation

system!
This plan will only work if evaluators use judgments based

on facts not politics and friendships.
How can someone who has no training in specific special

areas evaluate.
I am more interested in a plan of evaluation for

administrators. We need well defined expectations for our
administrators.
I do not care for the "new" evaluation. Administrators need

to come into all classrooms and keep up with their schools.
The whole process is retarded. In our building we have no

choice but go into Phase I and II. I feel I do the administrator's
job when I do this. I resent it also , because when transfers and
rifs occur there is no emphasis put on evaluation, nor on anything
else for that matter! Its doesn't matter what you chaperone, what
classes you take, or how much you participate. So what's the
point?
The only purpose my evaluation serves is to keep the

principal from getting in trouble because he's required to
conplete it.
Too many administrators "rubber stanp" good evaluations on

rotten teachers and service personnel. This devalues the
evaluation of the better teachers.
I participated in Phase I. It was too much paperwork-record

keeping. I prefer to simply be observed and evaluated. However, I
must be admit, it somewhat improved my performance since I had to
document activities done to reach my goals.
Idea is good but not implemented. The value or importance of

the evaluation at my school is not stressed or appreciated. The
plan is a chore I must do. The principal does not talk with me
about my plan with any seriousness or depth.
I feel it is very insulting to be evaluated by someone who

has no idea what should/should not be in my curriculum and by
someone who feels my job is an "extra" and not vital to a child's
119
development. My evaluator told me I had to do the next phase
despite my objections.
My only problem is that the evaluation process comes around

in the early spring months and what is generated must be completed
by the end of May. An evaluation should start with the start of a
school year and end in May.
Would like to have had more training.
Phase I and II are an excellent way for teachers to improve

and grow in the areas they need most.
I do not qualify for Phase I or II this year because I have

changed schools. I have always had excellent evaluations and
participated in Phase I and II. After many years of teaching in
public schools, I will be evaluated as a beginning or non-tenured
teacher. How ridiculous!!
Even when a teacher in our county gets ranked low because

they are truly inept, nothing gets done about it.
I feel that all personnel should be eligible to move into

Phase II, not just teachers. Other professionals are just as
qualified to more on. The fact that I am not in a classroom all
day should not influence this.
I believe it takes up a lot of the principals time in our

school-especially with teachers who have not reached Phase I or
TT
XX
At our school, the evaluator makes every effort to make sure

that we are knowledgeable about the process. I think that is very
important.
Phase I and II seem like a lot of work for nothing. I am a

self starter and feel this forced (or strongly suggested) growth
and development cycles are unnecessary.
I think Phase I, Phase II evaluation shifts responsibility

for professional improvement to the individual teacher, where it
belongs. I know my own professional strengths and weaknesses, and
I should be responsible for improving the weaknesses and
capitalizing on the strengths.
There seems to be a lot of differences in what is expected

by evaluators frcm school to school. some principals expect the
moon while others are going through the motions. I like this form
of evaluation, but the follow-up is weak.
120
I did not have a choice in entering into Phase I. Since I
was entered into the Growth/Development Plan, I have had not had
any administrator observe or comment on my teaching. I feel as if
I have not had any feedback at all.
Timeline for going over evaluations is not followed. They

are gone over the last day of school. They allow for too many
comnents from supervisors.
Only one evaluator in our building is following procedures

and holding pre and post conferences. It is pretty much a farce in
my opinion.
My evaluator tries to do what needs to be done-however time

constraints and perhaps lack of training prevent an effective
evaluation. I do all the work and Im not sure my evaluator really
knows my plan.
I've taught many years and have rarely been evaluated with
what I would consider a "thorough evaluation of my teaching." I do
not believe principals can be objective with dealing with
personnel that they have worked with for several years.
The evaluation is used as a means of harassment.
The Phase I/II evaluation program was forced on me. I would

prefer the old method of evaluation personally.
Evaluation is done on or near the end of school. I feel that

the evaluator does not spend time enough away from their desk to
really know what is being taught or done in the school.
The evaluation process has never been an integral part of

the job description. Usually it is punitive or worse everyone is
equal.
I am unfamiliar with the evaluation process. There has been

no explanation of it.
The evaluation of teachers should be done with no prior

warning by evaluators. We should be doing the best teaching
possible at all times, therefore we should be prepared for any
kind of an evaluation. I think the present Phase evaluation is
worthless.
Much of the evaluations being done are not during the

instructional time in school. It seems those doing the evaluating
don't have enough time to actually observe everyone.
I don't think we should have to write goals when we have

more important things to do such as teach.
121
Appendix G
PERCEPTIONS OF THE WV TEACHER EVALUATION
SYSTEM
PARTI (principal survey)
Please respond to the following concerning the West V irginia state mandated teacher
evaluation system. Indicate your response by marking SA for strongly agree, A for agree, U
for undecided, D for disagree, and SD for strongly disagree.
1. The evaluation system should be beneficial to professional growth and development of
teachers by leading to the development o f a plan of action for future professional growth for
them. SA A U D SD
2. The evaluation system Is beneficial to professional growth and development of teachers on my
staffby leading to the development of a plan of action for future professional growth for
them. SA A U D SD
3. The evaluation system should have a positive effect on the quality o f instruction in the
classrooms of my staff. SA A U D SD
4. The evaluation system has a positive effect on the quality of instruction in the classrooms of
my staff SA A U D SD
5. Those being evaluated should have an opportunity to participate in their evaluation process
during planning or in the pre or post conference. SA A U D SD
6. My teachers have had an opportunity to participate in their evaluation process during planning
or in the pre or post conference. SA A U D SD
7. Evaluators should have sufficient training in the evaluation process. SA A U D SD
8. I have had sufficient training in the evaluation process. SA A U D SD
9. Evaluators should be competent in the administration of the evaluation process.
SA A U D SD
10.1am competent in the administration o f the evaluation process. SA A U D SD
11. Teachers should have training so they know what to expect when evaluated.
SA A U D SD
12. My staff has had training so that they know what to expect when evaluated.
SA A U D SD
13. There should be minimal stressor emotional pressure associated with evaluation for the
teacher. SA A U D SD
14. There Is minimal stress or emotional pressure associated with the evaluation process for my
staff. SA A U D SD
15. There should be minimal stress or emotional pressure for the evaluator when evaluating staff
SA A U D SD
16. There Is minimal stress or emotional pressure for me when evaluating my staff
SD A U D SD
17. Staff development or inservice programs should be based on evaluation results.
SA A U D SD
18. Staff development or inservice programs for my staff are based on evaluation results.
SA A U D SD
19. Promotion of professional growth & development should be a reason for evaluation.
SA A U D SD
20. Promotion of professional growth & development Is a reason for evaluation in WV.
SA A U D SD
21. Encouraging quality performance should be a reason for evaluation.
SA A U D SD
122
22. Encouraging quality performance is a reason for evaluation in WV.
SA A U D SD
23. Providing evaluation data as a basis for personnel decisions should be a reason for evaluation.
SA A U D SD
24. Providing evaluation data as a basis for personnel decisions is a reason for evaluation in WV.
SA A U D SD
25. Career awards and merit pay should be reasons for evaluation. SA A U D SD
26. Career awards and merit pay are reasons for evaluation in WV SA A U D SD
PART II
Please check your response to ttems 1 through 5 concerning yourself and your position.
1. Gender Male________Female
2 Age: 20-25 ____26-30 31-35 ____ 36-40

41-45 46-50 over 50
3. Educational level:___ Bachelor's Bachelor's+15 ____Bachelor's+30
Master's Master's + 1 5 Master's + 30 Master's +45
Doctorate
4. Years o f experience as a school principal:____ 1-2 3-5 6-10
11-15 16-20 over 20
5. Type of school in which you are a principal: Elementary Middle/Junior High
Senior High
PART III
Please answers questions 6 through 8.
6. How many of the teachers that you are responsible for evaluating qualify to enter Phase I
or Phase II of the growth and development cycle of the state evaluation plan? ____
7. Of those who qualify to enter Phase I or Phase II of the growth and development cycle
o f the state evaluation plan, how many have chosen to do so? __________
8. Of those teachers who qualify to enter Phase I or Phase II o f the growth and
development cycle of the state evaluation plan, but have not done so, please select the
prim ary reason why you think they have chosen not to enter this cycle.
a. lack of information or training concerning this cycle of evaluation
b. too much paperwork involved
c. would rather have the evaluator observe them teaching
d. other (please specify)
9. Please rate your overall satisfaction with the teacher evaluation system in West
V irginia by circling one of the following.
very satisfied somewhat satisfied undecided
somewhat dissatisfied very dissatisfied
Please use the space below to comment on any aspect of the state evaluation plan or any of the
items on this survey.
123
PERCEPTIONS OF THE WV TEACHER EVALUATION
SYSTEM
P A R T Idnchvnrrajr)
Please respond to the following survey concerning the West Virginia state mandated teacher
evaluation system. A ll items apply to your own evaluation. The term "evaluator" refers to
the person who is responsible for evaluating you. Indicate your response by circling SA for
strongly agree, A for agree, U for undecided, D for disagree, and SD for strongly disagree
1. The evaluation system should be beneficial to my professional growth and development

by leading to the development o f a plan o f action for future professional growth.
SA A U D SD
2. The evaluation system Is beneficial to my professional growth and development by leading to
the development of a plan o f action for future professional growth. SA A U D SD
3. The evaluation system should have a positive effect on the quality of instruction.
SA A U D SD
4. The evaluation system has a positive effect on the quality of my instruction.
SA A U D SD
5. Teachers should have an opportunity to participate in the evaluation process through planning
or in the pre or post conference. SA A U D SD
6. I have had an opportunity to participate in my evaluation process through planning or in the
pre or post conference. SA A U D SD
7. Evaluators should have sufficient training in the evaluation process SA A U D SD
8. My evaluator has had sufficient training in the evaluation process. SA A U D SD
9. Evaluators should be competent in the administration of the evaluation process.
SA A U D SD
10. My evaluator is competent in the administration of the evaluation process.
SA A U D SD
11. Teachers should have training so they know what to expect when evaluated.
SA A U D SD
12. I have had sufficient training in the evaluation process so that I know what to expect when
evaluated. SA A U D SD
13. For the teacher there should be minimal stress or emotional pressure associated with
evaluation. SA A U D SD
14. For me there Is minimal stress or emotional pressure associated with my evaluation.
SA A U D SD
15. For the evaluator there should be minimal stress or emotional pressure associated with the
evaluation. SA A U D SD
16. For my evaluator there Is little stress or emotional pressure associated with my evaluation
process. SA A U D SD
17. Staff development or inservice programs should be based on evaluation results.
SA A U D SD
18. My staff development or inservice program Is based upon my evaluation results.
SA A U D SD
19. Promotion of professional growth and development should be a reason for evaluation.
SA A U D SD
20. Promotion of professional growth and development Is a reason for my evaluation.
SA A U D SD
21. Encouraging quality performance should be a reason for evaluation.
SA A U D SD
124
22. Encouraging quality performance Is a reason for my evaluation. SA A U D SD
23. Providing evaluation data as a basis for personnel decisions should be a reason for evaluation.
SA A U D SD
24. Providing evaluation data as a basis for personnel decisions Is a reason for my evaluation.
SA A U D SD
25. Career awards and merit pay should be reasons for evaluation. SA A U D SD
26. Career awards and merit pay are reasons for my evaluation. SA A U D SD
PART II
Please check your response to Hems 1 through 5 concerning yourself and your position.
1. Gender Female Male

2. Age:____ 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45
46-50 over 50
3. Educational level: Bachelor's Bachelor's+15 ____Bachelor's+30
Master's Master's +15 Master's+30
Master's +45 Doctorate
4. Years of experience as a teacher 1-2 ____ 3-6 7-10 11-15
16-20 over 20
5. Type of school in which you teach:
Elementary Middle/Junior High Senior High
PART III
Please respond to Hems 6 ,7 , and 8 concerning the Growth and Development cycles. Then
complete Item 9.
6. Do you qualify to enter Phase I or Phase II of the growth and development cycle of the state
evaluation plan?
Yes No Dont know
7. If you qualify to enter Phase I or Phase II of the growth and development cycle of the state
evaluation plan, have you chosen to do so? Yes No
8. If you qualify to enter Phase I or Phase II of the growth and development cycle of the state
evaluation plan, but you have not done so, please give the prim ary reason why you have
chosen not to enter this cycle.
a. lack of information or training concerning this cycle o f evaluation
b. too much paperwork involved
c. would rather have the evaluator observe me teaching
d. other (please specify)
9. Rate your overall satisfaction w ith the teacher evaluation system in West Virginia by
circling one of the following:
very satisfied somewhat satisfied undecided
somewhat dissatisfied very dissatisfied
Please use the space below to comment on any aspect of the state evaluation plan or any item on
this survey.
125
Appendix F
The statements used in the survey and percentage responses
are given here. Condensed wording is taken from teachers' survey
(T) and the principals' survey (P) in parentheses when needed for
clarity. Actual wording of the surveys is in Appendix E.
Principal and Teacher Responses to Perceptions of the West
Virginia Teacher Evaluation System Survey by Total Response and
Percent in Each Category
1. The evaluation system should be beneficial to professional
growth and development of teachers (pg&d)
2. The evaluation system is beneficial to my (teacher's) pg&d.

SA % A % U % D % SD % NR %
IP 76 60.80 42 33.60 3 2.40 3 2.40 0 0.00 1 0.80
IT 96 62.34 51 33.12 6 3.90 0 0.00 1 0.65 0 0.00
2P 20 16.00 60 48.00 21 16.80 20 16.00 4 3.20 0 0.00
2T 17 11.03 73 47.40 25 16.23 31 20.13 6 3.90 2 1.30
3. The evaluation system should have a positive effect on the
quality of instruction.
4. The evaluation system has a positive effect on the quality of
instruction in my (teacher's) classroom.

SA % A % U % D % SD % NR %
3P 73 58.40 47 37.60 2 1.60 2 1.60 0 0.00 1 0.80
3T 85 55.19 64 41.56 3 1.95 0 0.00 1 0.65 1 0.65
4P 10 8.00 64 51.20 26 20.80 21 16.80 4 3.20 0 0.00
4T 16 10.39 70 45.45 28 18.18 33 21.43 5 3.25 2 1.30
126
Principal and Teacher Responses to Perceptions of the Nest
5. Teachers should have an opportunity to participate in the
evaluation process .
6. I have had (My teachers have had) opportunity to participate
in the evaluation process.

SA % A % U % D % SD % NR %
5P 80 64.00 41 32.80 2 1.60 1 0.80 1 0.80 0 0.00
5T 94 61.04 58 37.66 1 0.65 0 0.00 1 0.65 0 0.00
6P 76 60.80 49 39.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
6T 53 34.42 76 49.35 2 1.30 16 10.39 4 2.60 3 1.95
7. Evaluators should have sufficient training in the evaluation
process.
8. My evaluator has had ( I have had) sufficient training in the
process.
SA % A % U % D % SD % NR %
7P 91 72.80 34 27.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
7T 119 77.27 34 22.08 1 0.65 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
8P 53 42.40 55 44.00 6 4.80 9 7.20 2 1.60 0 0.00
8T 28 18.18 62 40.26 36 23.38 21 13.64 4 2.60 3 1.95
127
9. Evaluators should be ccmpetent in the evaluation process.
10. My evaluator is (I am) competent in the evaluation process.
SA % A % U % D % SD % MR %
9P 85 68.00 40 32.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
9T 109 70.78 42 27.27 1 0.65 2 1.30 0 0.00 0 0.00
10P 49 39.20 68 54.40 7 5.60 1 0.80 0 0.00 0 0.00
10T 31 20.13 70 45.45 29 18.83 5 9.74 5 3.25 4 2.60
11. Teachers should have training so they know what to expect when
evaluated.
12. I have had (My staff has had) training.

SA % A % U % D % SD % NR %
IIP 64 51.20 54 43.20 6 4.80 1 0.80 0 0.00 0 0.00
11T 72 46.75 68 44.16 11 7.14 3 1.95 0 0.00 0 0.00
12P 34 27.20 68 54.40 10 8.00 9 7.20 2 1.60 2 1.60
12T 19 12.33 56 36.36 26 16.88 33 21.43 17 11.04 3 1.95
128
13. For the teacher there should be minimal stress associated with
evaluation.
14. For me (For my staff) there is minimal stress associated with
evaluation.
SA % A % U % D % SD % NR %
13P 55 44.00 49 39.20 12 9.60 7 5.60 2 1.60 0 0.00
13T 85 55.19 59 38.31 5 3.25 5 3.25 0 0.00 0 0.00
14P 36 28.80 68 54.40 17 13.60 3 2.40 1 0.80 0 0.00
14T 34 22.08 85 55.19 7 4.54 22 14.29 6 3.90 0 0.00
15. For the evaluator there should be minimal stress associated
with the evaluation process.
16. For my evaluator (For me) there is minimal stress associated
with the evaluation process.
SA % A % U % D % SD % NR %
15P 57 45.60 58 46.40 4 3.20 5 4.00 0 0.00 1 0.80
15T 61 39.61 81 52.60 8 5.19 4 2.60 0 0.00 0 0.00
16P 27 21.60 62 49.60 11 8.80 17 13.60 8 6.40 1 0.80
16T 35 22.73 72 46.75 28 18.18 12 7.79 4 2.60 3 1.95
129
17. Staff development or inservice programs should be based upon
evaluation results.
18. My staff development (The staff development of my staff) is
based upon evaluation results.
SA % A % U % D % SD % NR %
17P 34 27.20 51 40.80 26 20.80 11 8.80 2 1.60 1 0.80
17T 36 23.38 62 40.26 35 22.73 13 8.44 6 3.90 2 1.30
18P 9 8.12 40 25.97 29 18.83 39 25.32 6 3.90 2 1.30
18T 3 1.95 13 8.44 33 21.43 86 55.84 18 11.69 1 6.49
19. Promotion of professional growth and development should be a
reason for evaluation.
20. Promotion of professional growth and development is a reason
for evaluation in West Virginia.
SA % A % U % D % SD % NR %
19P 49 39.20 56 44.80 14 11.20 5 4.00 1 0.80 0 0.00
19T 70 45.45 65 42.21 15 9.74 1 0.65 2 1.30 1 0.65
20P 20 16.00 60 48.00 17 13.60 23 18.40 5 4.00 0 0.00
20T 20 12.99 60 38.96 39 25.32 24 15.58 8 5.19 3 1.95
130
21. Encouraging quality performance should be a reason for
evaluation.
22. Encouraging quality performance is a reason for evaluation in
WV.
SA % A % U % D % SD % NR %
21P 84 67.20 40 32.00 1 0.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
21T 83 53.90 69 44.81 1 0.65 1 0.65 0 0.00 0 0.00
22P 38 30.40 52 41.60 14 11.20 15 12.00 5 4..00 1 0.80
22T 28 18.18 62 40.26 32 20.78 25 16.23 6 3.90 1 0.65
23. Providing evaluation data as a basis for personnel decisions
should be a reason for evaluation.
24. Providing evaluation data as a basis for personnel decisions
is a reason for evaluations in WV.
SA % A % U % D % SD % NR %
23P 49 39.20 61 48.80 10 8.00 1 0.80 3 2.40 1 0.80
23T 29 19.33 69 44.81 32 20.78 15 9.74 5 3.25 4 2.60
24P 14 11.20 48 38.40 22 17.60 24 19.20 16 12.80 1 0.80
24T 7 4.55 30 19.48 57 37.01 43 27.92 9 5.84 8 5.19
131
25. Career awards and merit pay should be reasons for evaluation.
26. Career awards and merit pay are reasons for evaluation in WV.
SA % A % U % D % SD % NR %
25P 27 21.60 23 18.40 27 21.60 23 18.40 25 20.00 0 0.00
25T 31 20.13 31 20.13 33 21.43 29 18.83 30 19.48 0 0.00
26P 4 3.20 4 3.20 18 14.40 47 37.60 51 40.80 1 0.80
26T 2 1.30 4 2.60 14 9.09 72 46.75 61 39.61 1 0.65
132
APPROVAL OF EXAMINING COMMITTEE
o^nn Hall, Ed.D.
Ronald B. Childress, Ed.D.
K enM Yo
dra S. Bailey, Ed-D,
Powell E. Toth, Ph.D., Chair
133

Information To Users

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Information To Users

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality o f this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

REGARDING THE WEST VIRGINIA

MANDATED PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF TEACHERS

Submitted to the School of Education

Department of Educational Leadership

West Virginia University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of Doctor of Education

Sarah Lee Brown

UMI Microform 9727667

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare

perceptions of principals and teachers concerning the West

Virginia mandated performance evaluation of teachers. A

comparison was made of principals' and teachers' perceived

current and desired evaluation practice. Then a comparison was

made between principals and teachers to find any differences in

perceptions. Efforts were made to find relationships between

overall satisfaction and evaluation practices and between overall

satisfaction and demographic variables. Both groups were asked why

teachers do not choose to enter the Phase I/II professional growth

and development cycle.

Surveys were mailed to 218 principals and 270 teachers,

randomly selected from the population of public school principals

and teachers by staff from the West Virginia Department of

Education. A response rate of 57% was obtained. Data were analyzed

using general linear models procedures.

Differences were found in both principals' and teachers'

perceptions of current and desired practices in evaluation on all

factors investigated. Differences were found between perceptions

of principals and teachers concerning desired practice on all

factors investigated except career awards, opportunity to

participate, and evaluator competency. Differences were found

between perceptions of principals and teachers concerning

perceived current practices on all factors investigated. For

principals and teachers significant correlation was found between

overall satisfaction and positive effect on instruction. For

teachers there was also a significant correlation between overall

satisfaction and benefit to professional growth. No significant

differences were found in overall satisfaction as predicted by

demographic factors. Reasons for not entering Phase I/II of the

professional growth and development cycle included among others:

rather have evaluator observe, lack of understanding or training,

to much paperwork, and fear of portfolio.

The results of this study indicated that while teachers and

principals are in agreement on desired practices in evaluation,

their perceptions of current practice are different. Additional

training in the evaluation process is need for both groups.

Efforts need to be made to connect staff development and

evaluations and to make the evaluations beneficial to improved

instruction and encouraging quality performance.

Special appreciation to:

Those principals and teachers who responded to my surveys;

Buster Brown for being a great chauffeur,

My sister, Reva Holder, and her husband Freeman, who encouraged me to do my

the last ten years, and my source o f motivation since childhood;

West Virginia Teacher Evaluation............................................................10

Statement of the Problem and Research Questions................................. 14

Two: Review o f the Literature......................................................................... 25

History of Teacher Evaluation................................................................25