<p> Traditional teacher evaluation procedures involve the school leader providing feedback in a summative form to the classroom teacher (Tuytens & Devos, 2011). The function of the administrator to be both supervisor and evaluator is a contrasting role. There are four main purposes of teacher evaluation: improvement, accountability, staff development, and personnel decisions (Darling-Hammond, Wise, & Pease, 1983; Tuytens & Devos, 2011). Administrators are already constrained for time and resources. Therefore, fulfilling all four purposes through the current evaluation process in California is becoming increasingly difficult.</p><p> Using peers in the evaluation process is an alternative evaluation method being explored across the country, specifically in the form of Peer Assistance and Review (PAR; Goldstein, 2004; Matula, 2011; Weems & Rogers, 2010). The problem this research addressed was the efficacy of teacher evaluation systems and how evaluative practice can be improved from the perspectives of principals and Consulting Teachers (CTs) with experience in the PAR program. </p><p> The study found principals and CTs had mixed reactions regarding the inclusion of PAR as a multiple measure for teacher evaluation. All participants' perceptions of the role of the CT included the common language of supporter, helper, coach, and mentor, which matched the PAR documents from each district. The data showed that subjectivity, fear, and lack of time, negatively impacted the traditional teacher evaluation process and that involving peers in the process could be beneficial.</p>
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:PROQUEST/oai:pqdtoai.proquest.com:3662312 |
| Date | 04 February 2015 |
| Creators | Hartloff, Kristin Michelle |
| Publisher | California State University, Fullerton |
| Source Sets | ProQuest.com |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | thesis |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds