![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
Should the end result of the evaluation process in education be teacher probation? What is causing a high percentage of teachers in their first five years of teaching to be put on probation? Why are a high percentage of teachers in their eleventh to fifteenth years of teaching ending up on probation? Can discipline be removed from proficiency in other areas of teaching? How many areas must a certified employee be judged deficient in before being placed on probation? Do the evaluative criteria used in the evaluation instrument result in the improvement of instruction or the improvement of the teaching/learning process? What is the role of the principal in the evaluative/probationary process? What should the evaluative process be in education? Is teacher probation a failure of the system to provide the type of growth‐oriented process needed by teachers?
These questions are examined as the responses of superintendents in Washington State School districts are analyzed. Their responses were gathered in a study conducted by an Eastern Washington University Department of Education research team.