An example of a comprehensive mechanism for obtaining specific evaluative data related to teacher education programs is presented. This Supervising Teacher's Program Evaluation Form was devised to gather data from cooperating teachers in three areas: (1) the adequacy of the student teacher's training; (2) the adequacy of the university supervisor's supervision of student teachers; and (3) the adequacy of the Florida State University's Office of Field Experiences in the duties of supervision, cooperation, and communication with supervising teachers. While the questionnaire is being used to assess the effectiveness of Florida State University's teacher education program, investigators recognize a margin for error in interpreting responses. The form calls for ratings of excellent, good, fair, and poor. The supervising teachers appeared to rate almost all of the student teachers highly, and it is recognized that supervising teachers are inclined to overestimate or make leniency errors when they are familiar with those whom they are rating. Therefore, in analyzing the responses to these forms, it is assumed by the investigators that a rating of "good" implies that there is room for improvement. The Office of Field Experiences, using this assumption, has observed areas of weakness in the teacher training program and has recommended measures for improvement. In examining the ratings of the university supervisors and their own office, the investigators, using the same allowance for error, have proposed changes for ameliorating weaknesses in the various teacher education departments. (JD)