ERIC Number: ED239407
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1983-Apr
Reference Count: 0
Analogizing Teacher Evaluation Policies and Procedures with Case Law.
Allen, Kay Holden; Jarvis, Melvin E.
Teacher evaluation procedures, if ineptly accomplished, are potentially vulnerable to litigation (which most school districts can ill afford), because there is no consensus as to what constitutes effective teaching; hence the validity of rating systems and/or reliability of observations is open to challenge. Accordingly, the evaluation policies and procedures in five Utah school districts are analyzed to derive a composite picture of characteristic legally vulnerable flaws: (1) the stated criteria are not clearly tied to the teaching task; (2) the performance criteria are not clearly defined in terms of observable behaviors or explicit standards; (3) there is no training for evaluators, and so there is no guarantee of reliability or consistency in the observation process. Because Utah has no statutes governing teacher evaluation, a series of landmark court decisions are cited that bear on the above issues. These include "Griggs vs. Duke Power Co." (1970), which prohibits non-job-related employment practices; "Chance vs. Board of Examiners" (1972), which requires evaluation criteria to demonstrate both content and predictive validity; and "Brito et al. vs. The Zia Company" (1973), which prohibits ill-defined and subjectively based evaluation criteria. An appendix provides the eight questions used to assess the deficiencies in the evaluation procedures under study. (TE)
Publication Type: Reports - Research; Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials; Speeches/Meeting Papers
Education Level: N/A
Audience: Administrators; Teachers; Practitioners
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers: Albemarle Paper Co v Moody; Brito et al v The Zia Company; Chance v Board of Examiners; Griggs v Duke Power Company
Note: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ameri