An analysis of perceptions of Tennessee public school teachers, building-level administrators and central office administrators toward teacher evaluation

This study had as its purpose the comparison and analysis of the descriptive data collected by Patricia Hayes Miller (University of Tennessee, June, 1980) concerning the perceptions of 314 central office and 261 building-level administrators toward teacher evaluation, and by Russell G. Ramsay (University of Tennessee, August, 1980) concerning the perceptions of 243 teachers toward the facets of teacher evaluation explored by the same questionnaire used by Patricia Miller. Responses by randomly drawn members of each of the three segments mentioned revealed their perceptions of the purposes of teacher evaluation, methods of evaluation, and evaluation priorities.

The major findings of the study were:

1. The purposes for which teacher evaluation was being conducted in Tennessee were perceived in a distinctly different manner by administrators and teachers.

2. Significant differences existed among teachers, building-level administrators and central office administrators as to the desirability of the various methods of teacher evaluation explored by the "Teacher Evaluation Questionnaire."

3. There was a significant lack of agreement among teachers, building-level administrators and central office administrators regarding:

a. the number of hours spent per teacher in the evaluation process,

b. the number of hours per teacher which should be spent in the evaluation process,

c. the number of observations performed per teacher and the number of observations which should be performed during an evaluation year, and

d. the present average length of an observation and the optimum length of an observation.

4. A significant discrepancy existed between the perceptions of teachers and administrators as to the degree of teacher involvement in the development and implementation of the evaluation process.

5. Teachers perceived their overall evaluation process to be significantly less acceptable than did administrators.

6. Evidence pointed to a more positive perception of the overall evaluation process by teachers as a function of their participation in the development of the evaluation procedures and instruments.

7. Evidence indicated a significant positive correlation between teachers' perceptions of their overall evaluation process and the extent of their participation in the implementation of the process.

8. At this point in time, the method utilized in the evaluation did not influence Tennessee teachers' perceptions of the purposes for teacher evaluation.

9. Evidence pointed to a significant positive correlation between perceptions of the overall evaluation process and the increased incidence and length of classroom observations.