"Teacher evaluation," a perennial educational red herring, is not a valid means of significantly improving educational quality. Raising the level of teaching performance nationwide will first require (1) a doubling of labor costs to establish a manageable maximum class size and to reduce teaching hours so that teachers have the time and energy to be true professionals, and (2) a raising of entry standards through an improved process of teacher selection and certification which should include greater academic content in teacher training, a master's degree, examination before internship, and a 2- or 3-year internship with gradual assumption of full teaching load under supervision by training teachers who also teach a reduced load. When progress is made in those areas, we might begin to pursue other ways of improving teacher performance. Most abuses of the teacher evaluation process arise from attempts by administrators and supervisors to use their evaluative power to enforce discipline and conformity within the school bureaucracy. Some independent means of evaluation could be devised which would do more than merely pass judgment on the worth of a teacher. For example, a panel of teachers, supervisors, and college people not employed by the district might observe a teacher for perhaps a week, interview him, review records, and give a written evaluation, available to the teacher, which would emphasize his strengths and weaknesses. (JS)