Personnel evaluation in education occurs predominantly at the summative level and is used primarily for personnel decisions. Teachers are provided little feedback regarding their classroom performance and even less assistance in improving areas identified as weaknesses. While the improvement of instructional practice is perhaps the most important--and most positive--purpose of teacher evaluation, the current "dominant model" of teacher evaluation does not empower teachers to improve their instructional practices. Typically, there is no feedback for the teacher and no suggestions for improvement. The Collaborative Teacher Growth Model is offered as a possible alternative to the current system of evaluating teacher performance. This model incorporates feedback from a variety of sources--administrator observations, peer evaluations, student feedback, and teacher self-assessment--in an attempt to obtain a thorough and representative assessment of a teacher's instructional performance. The individuals then work collaboratively to develop an appropriate and individualized improvement plan for the teacher. However, several limitations to this alternative model exist. Language contained in state law and/or collective bargaining agreements often limit the frequency and scheduling of teacher evaluations. Fair dismissal laws may also specify that only individuals holding certain positions within the district may serve as evaluators of teaching performance. Finally, teachers must still be open to the idea of constructive feedback and must acknowledge that there is a need for improvement and that all teachers can improve. (Contains 36 references.) (Author)