Annotated Bibliography of Publications Related to Teacher Evaluation

Bibliography

• Barr, Arvil S. “Measurement of Teaching Efficiency,” in Growing Points in Educational Research, official report of the American Educational Research Association, a department of the National Education Association, 1949. Pp. 251–54. This is a review of the subject, making these points: (1) Evaluation of teachers was, is, and always will be carried on. It is incumbent on us to improve the process. (2) Confusing rating with evaluation is unfortunate because rating is only one method and not a good one. The trend is toward a multiple approach, applying more than one type of data, more than one type of data gathering device, and more than one evaluator. (3) The solution of many problems in education awaits the development of adequate means of teacher evaluation. Four approaches in teacher evaluation are surveyed: (1) Evaluation of performance, observance of behavior; (2) evaluation of personal qualities, inferred from behavior or paper and pencil tests; (3) evaluation of mental prerequisites—knowledge, skills, interests, attitudes, etc., that seem to lie back of and to control performance; (4) evaluation of pupil growth and achievement. There is a review of the recent research, and a concluding section dealing with suggestions regarding needed research.
   Google Scholar
• Barr, Arvil S. “Merit Pay for Teachers?” Phi Delta Kappan, XXXI (September 1949), pp. 5–7. Discussion of the need of evaluation and the traditional difficulties encountered. The current trend is toward a multiple approach involving more than one person, method and instrument. A review of the four approaches (see previous reference). Outlines three types of data gathering devices: (1) Tests for pupils and teachers; (2) rating scales, check lists, and other criteria of teacher effectiveness, and (3) inventories. Suggestion of a “Master Teacher” category open to (1) only those who have shown themselves to be superior teachers, (2) only those who have through training and experience acquired an adequate maturity to provide the desired leadership, and (3) only those who have demonstrated interests that transcend their own individual assignments and who have shown special aptitudes in helping others. The categories of Apprentice and Journeyman are also suggested; the designation Master should not go for unusual qualification in any one of these criteria, but to adequacy in all. Three important questions are posed: 1. Shall there be merit pay increases within these categories ? 2. How finely can these differences be drawn using the now available techniques ? 3. What ultimate social and educational values will be derived from such differentations ? The answer to the first question is a tentative yes, but dependent on the answer to the third question and for this “we need more data.” The answer to the second question is that we are able to differentiate only within broad categories.
   Google Scholar
• Barr, Arvil S. “Teaching Competencies,” Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Revised Edition 1950. New York: Macmillan Co., 1950. Pp. 1446–54. In defining teacher efficiency, the wider inclusive role of the teacher is considered: The teacher as (a) a director of learning, (b) as a friend and counselor of pupils, (c) a member of a group of professional workers, and (d) a citizen participating in various community activities. Three approaches to teacher efficiency are suggested: (1) Definitions based on estimates of traits assumed to function in the teaching act, such as drive, considerateness, emotional stability, intelligence, etc., (2) definitions based on appraisal of activities included in teaching, such as discovering and defining pupil needs, setting goals, stimulating interest, etc., and (3) definitions derived from measures of pupil growth. There is a review of the pertinent research.
   Google Scholar
• Barr, A. S. “Why Merit Rating Doesn’t Work,” American Teacher, XXXVI (March 1952), p. 24. Although listed in the Education Index under Barr, this article is not by Barr, but is an item in the “Education News Digest” column of the American Teacher. Several quotations from Barr’s works, not necessarily in context, are given.
   Google Scholar
• Barr, Arvil S. “Measurement of Teacher Characteristics and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency,” Review of Educational Research, XXII (June 1952), pp. 169–74. A review of recent research in relating characteristics to teaching efficiency, including teacher-pupil relations, teacher personality, qualities basic to teaching success, prediction of teaching success, and miscellaneous studies. A discussion of the criteria of teaching effectiveness and needed research. Followed by a careful bibliography of research in this field.
   Google Scholar
• Barr, Arvil S. and others. “Report of the Committee on the Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness,” Review of Educational Research, XXII (June 1952), pp. 238–63. An involved discussion of the complex conceptual framework in which the Committee orients the research problem. In submitting this report, the Committee recommends that clearance be given for specific and varied research activities. (There is also a minority report signed by one man.)
   Google Scholar
• Beecher, Dwight E. “Objections Answered —The New York Plan of Rewarding Good Teaching,” American School Board Journal, CXIX (October 1949), pp. 35–7. Taking up fifteen specific quotations from an article by Spaulding (American School Board Journal, July 1949) the writer criticizes and answers each. Seven positive values of the 1947 New York salary law are listed and developed.
   Google Scholar
• Beecher, Dwight E. Evaluation of Teaching New York: Syracuse University Press, 1949.
   Google Scholar
• Beecher, Dwight E. “Judging the Effectiveness of Teaching,” National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, XXXIV (December 1950), pp. 270–81. A paper on teacher evaluation structured around two aspects: (1) Basic Concepts in the Evaluation of Teaching, and (2) Applying the Basic Principles of Evaluation. “A thorough evaluation of teaching is an essential and basic function of supervision. Such evaluation should be viewed by teachers, supervisors, and administrators as a constructive, cooperative guidance procedure aimed at the improvement of instruction. Orientation to this concept may best be achieved through active teacher participation in planning and executing the evaluation program. Teacher fear of imposed ratings may best be dispelled through the mutual confidence provided by such participation. The evaluation of teachers should be continuous rather than periodic; it should be purposeful and the findings should be used for diagnosis of strengths and weaknesses in conference with the teacher… . Tf the appraisal is to be valid the criteria used must correspond to the basic objectives of teaching in the school; only those criteria involving desirable pupil change, or practices and behaviors accepted as promoting such change, will produce valid results. The diagnosis on which evaluation is based must include a comprehensive analysis of services rendered, with adequate, objectively observed evidence of performance…. When teaching is judged in accordance with these two sets of principles, we may expect increased confidence on the part of teachers in those responsible for such judgments.”.
   Google Scholar
• Beecher, Dwight E. “An Evaluation of the Attempts of Local School Systems in New York State to Include Competence Measures in the Salary Schedules,” Harvard Educational Review, XXII, No. 2 (Spring 1952), pp. 132–40. How the New York Salary Law of 1947 was received, and how it affected the education of youth and the teaching profession on the local or community level is described. The rather remarkable feature of a salary law designed and planned without democratic participation, but proposing, nevertheless, a great amount of democratic participation in local communities in the carrying out of its provisions, is developed. The author believes that a great part of what unfavorable reaction came to the law was due to the interference of the time element, which prevented teacher and local participation in the formulation of the provisions of the law.
   Google Scholar
• Beecher, Dwight E., and Bump, Janet W. The Evaluation of Teaching in New York State; Standards and Procedures Recommended by Local Advisory Committees. Albany: New York State Department of Education, 1950. 57 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Best, Leonard E. “Incentive Pay for Better Teaching,” School Executive, LXIX (May 1950), pp. 43–4. “A school board member looks at the problem of recognizing teacher excellence by paying extra for exceptionally meritorious service.” “Some people say that you cannot evaluate teachers; therefore, you should pay more for teachers with greater educational training…. If we pay on the basis of a college degree, we really shift the responsibility from the administrator in our schools to the professor in the teacher training college. If this evasion of responsibility reaches its ultimate extreme, we should refuse to pass on initial teacher selection…. Any teacher selection must involve an evaluation of fitness for the job, even though we have no means of seeing teachers in action unless we visit them at their schools… We might just as well ignore the three year preliminary period of tenure if, at the end of three years we are unable to differentiate between the teaching capacity and performances of various teachers. Any election to go on tenure involves careful evaluation. We must continue to evaluate teachers from the time they sign the original contract until they leave the system… We should also provide a definite incentive to all teachers to do their best.” Other arguments in favor of a merit salary.
   Google Scholar
• Better Than Rating. Association for Curriculum Development, Commission on Teacher Evaluation, National Education Association. 80 pp. A statement of the issues involved in teacher rating, the relationship between evaluation and professional growth, and the effect on the total school program. The “better way” is an outline of a plan for a “comprehensive program of educational appraisal,” as distinct from mechanical rating devices. (1) The process is a cooperative enterprise involving pupils, school people, and lay citizens; (2) the program of appraisal starts “where the teachers are and goes on from there.” “Individuals will not be singled out and marked either for undeserved ‘success’ or equally undeserved failure.” Through cooperative planning, the school community will find means whereby every individual, whether teacher, principal, supervisor, or pupil, will literally discover that he has an essential part in the on-going program. (3) “Evaluation must be an integral part of the school community’s program for improving the educational process, never an end product or imposed by administrative order. “ (4) The program of appraisal is continuous and comprehensive. Techniques of appraisal must be flexible. (5) Methods and procedure for evaluating teacher services must be cooperatively and locally evolved, since objectives set by one group will not be exactly similar to those set by any other group. Arbitrary choice of a ready-made scale or plan for measuring or ranking teachers, principals, or pupils, is not necessary or possible in situations which encourage freedom of choice. (6) Techniques must be developed for gathering evidence of individual growth and development. (7) An evaluative process makes intelligent use of objective testing instruments which are available or can be constructed.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt, W. J. “Follow-Up of Some Earlier Wisconsin Studies of Teaching Ability,” Journal of Experimental Education, XVIII (September 1949), pp. 1–29. This is a follow-up of the studies made by LaDuke in 1945, Rostker in 1945, Jones in 1946, and Lins in 1946, under the guidance of A. S. Barr. This study found coefficients of correlation for various measures of teaching ability (rating forms) for reliability, and also comparisons with various measures of pupil progress. The concern here is mostly with finding means of predicting teacher success.
   Google Scholar
• Brodsky, Charles. “The ‘Spark’ in Good Teaching, “ Clearing House, XXIV (September 1949), pp. 41–2. (Editor’s Note: Mr. Brodsky calls it ‘spark’. You can’t always recognize it in the teacher himself…. Yet it appears over and over again in the classes of every teacher who makes education a genuine treat for his students.) An eighteen point check-list, mostly concerning the atmosphere of the classroom, such as: Do you really have fun in the classroom? Is there so much work going on, so vital to the youngsters, that they can’t help but talk excitedly to each other from time to time, even while you’re trying to get them quiet? “Let’s see who are the teachers with that ‘spark’. They’re all kinds—young, middle-aged, and old. They’re fat and thin. They’re teachers who carry extra jobs after school hours, and those who go home to relax and prepare for the next day’s work. “ This teacher may be in any field. “He may or may not be active in teacher’s professional organizations. This teacher may be married or single. Nor are the personalities of these teachers the same. The master teacher may be the one who pours on the charm and floods the classroom with words, or he may be the more quiet type.”.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, Sara Ann. “Technique for Evaluating the Ability of Teachers to Apply Principles Concerned with the Development Needs of Adolescent Girls,” Journal of Educational Psychology, XLI (December 1950), pp. 481–7. An abstract of a thesis in which the author investigated the efficiency of paper and pencil tests to measure ability of teachers to apply principles concerned with developmental needs of adolescents. In conclusion: “It can be reasonably assumed that the ability of individuals to apply principles can be measured by X1and X2 (two of the tests). These tests should make it unnecessary for teacher educators to expend time, energy, and money in visiting widely distributed schools for the purpose of observing teachers in their classrooms. “ Other teacher efficiencies were not studied.
   Google Scholar
• Burke, Arvid J. “Organized Teachers and Public Policy on Teachers’ Salaries,” Harvard Educational Review, XXII (Spring 1952), pp. 150–2. Begins with a discussion of the factors that have limited the economic effectiveness of teacher organizations, and a 10 point program of “positive” action for organized teachers. (Note: The author appears to be discussing “education” associations, and not “teachers unions”.) In regard to merit salaries: “Who can judge better… (than teachers themselves)… if their effectiveness is increased or decreased by policies which involve fear, conformity, rating by supervisors, and insecurity, or by policies which engender self-confidence, freedom, help and guidance from superiors, and security?… “.
   Google Scholar
• Burke, Arvid J. “Quality of Teaching Service and Salary Policy, “ New York State Education, XXXIX (May 1952), pp. 610–11. A brief statement of the viewpoint of “Organized teachers” on salary policy relative to merit, summarized in ten “generalizations. “ One of these states: “It is probable that praise, understanding, sympathy, helpfulness, and encouragement which result in hope, happiness, and self-confidence will promote maximum growth and effectiveness in a teaching staff. If rating and evaluation destroy this relationship between teachers and the administrative or supervisory staff, the results may be lower equality of service. “.
   Google Scholar
• Burke, John E. “What Makes a Good Teacher?” Educational Forum, XVI (January, 1952), pp. 205–9.
   Google Scholar
• Chamberlain, Leo M., and Kindred, Leslie W. Teacher and School Organization, Second Edition. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1949, pp. 308–17. In Chapter X, “Working With Supervisors,” the author discusses the appraisal of teaching under three types: (1) the method of personal estimate, or subjective judgment; (2) the teacher rating scale or score card; and (3) the evaluation of pupil progress. The rating scale is “unquestionably of larger importance in… (a supervisory) …. capacity. It makes its greatest contribution as a check-list and not as a scoring instrument.”.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, Elmer J. “Relationship Between the Personality Traits of Elementary School Teachers and Their Evaluation of Objectionable Pupil Behavior, “ Journal of Educational Research, XLV (September 1951), pp. 61–6. Some types of pupil behavior are more annoying to teachers with good mental health than to those with poor mental health, while other types of pupil behavior annoy the teachers with poor mental health more and those with good mental health less. Details of the research upon which this statement is based.
   Google Scholar
• Cook, William A. “Merit Rating and Salary Increase,” American School Board Journal, CXXIV (June 1952), pp. 33–4. A strong defense of the principle of rewarding teacher merit by paying salary increments. There is a list of four items involved in the price teachers pay for not having merit rating, and also a list of five things the author says the denial of merit rating is doing to ourselves.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke, Dennis H. “Should the Teacher Be Paid for Tenure?” Phi Delta Kappan, XXXI (March 1950), pp. 302–4. Payment of teachers on the basis of years of service is questioned. (This is what is meant by being “paid for tenure”.) “It has been my observation that for the most part, tenure protects the weak and ineffective teacher and professor. The competent, conscientious, and hard-working ones do not need it. “ Suggests paying teachers on a salary schedule based about 90% on education and years of service, and 10% in terms of tests of students, tests of teachers, supervisory ratings, etc. Then as we attain more knowledge and better techniques of evaluating teachers, the percentage or weighting assigned to the teacher’s rating could be increased accordingly.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke, Paul and Ware, Richard. “Removing the ‘Hurdles’ from the Salary Schedule in Washington, D. C.,” American Teacher, XXXVII (December 1952), pp. 6–9. A review of the efforts of the American Federation of Teachers to change the 1947 salary schedule law in Washington, D. C., eliminating the “hurdles” which made the schedule in reality a merit-salary one. The hurdles were subsequently removed in 1951. The attitude of the American Federation of Teachers toward merit-salaries is presented.
   Google Scholar
• Coss, Joe G. “Downey Develops Criteria for Superior Teachers,” American School Board Journal, CXXI (October 1950), p. 74. The author is the District Superintendent of Schools in Downey, California, and in the article describes the experience of a committee of teachers and administrators to evolve criteria of the “superior” teacher. The criteria were used in evaluating probationary teachers to be given tenure, and were worked out in the following areas: I Philosophy; II Skills and Techniques; III Attitudes; and IV Personal Qualifications.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, A. H. “Student, Your Customer,” California Teachers Association Journal, II (February 1953), p. 10.
   Google Scholar
• Domas, Simeon J. Report of an Exploratory Study of Teacher Competence. Cambridge, Mass.: New England School Development Council, 1950. Report of a study conducted under the joint sponsorship of the Educational Research Corporation and the Harvard Graduate School of Education. The approach chosen was an application of the “critical incidents” technique. In this technique, incidents are collected by asking respondents, teachers and administrators, to think of outstanding examples from actual experience of teacher competence and teacher incompetence, and to relate enough of the cases so that the behavior which makes the case one of outstanding competence or of incompetence can be identified. Incidents were collected mostly through group interviews, and, in all, 558 incidents of effective behavior, and 443 incidents of ineffective behavior were collected. Descriptions of the respondents and of the incidents is carefully documented. Numerous schemes for classification of the incidents were tried, but no classification so far used resulted in a list short enough for practical use, yet complete enough to be defensible as to validity. There is data here for further research, and some suggestions along this line are supplied.
   Google Scholar
• Domas Simeon J. “Report of An Exploratory Study of Teacher Competence,” American Business Education, VIII (May 1952), pp. 305–7. A brief description of the study described in reference 27.
   Google Scholar
• Domas, Simeon J., and Tiedeman, David V. “Teacher Competence: An Annotated Bibliography,” Journal of Experimental Education, XIX (December 1950), pp. 99–218. Listing of over 1000 articles, books, pamphlets, etc., on all aspects of teacher competence, most of which are annotated. Classification table makes location of desired articles convenient. It covers publications up through the first half of 1949. This present bibliography, while limited to teacher evaluation and closely related subjects, does not repeat any of the Domas and Tiedeman listings. It begins where, in point of time, they left off.
   Google Scholar
• Douglass, Harl R., and Mills, Hubert H. Teaching in High School. New York: Ronald Press Co., 1948. Pp. 568–89. Aspects of teacher evaluation, self-evaluation, and pupil appraisal. Personal traits may be listed as teachers themselves see them, as pupils or administrators see them. A self-appraisal list of over forty characteristics is presented (questions which the teacher may ask of himself), to be marked on a five-point scale. Also discussion of teacher-community relationships.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, Kathleen M. “A Critical Survey of Methods of Assessing Teaching Ability,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, XXI (June 1951), pp. 89–95. Four criteria of teaching ability are examined: Pupil gain in information, the opinion of experts, ratings on various rating scales, and the opinions of pupils. None of these is found entirely satisfactory, though the opinion of experts is at present the most suitable for general use. The available evidence suggests that there is little agreement between assessments made using different criteria, but very few studies on this subject have been reported. Probably the best criterion of any teacher’s worth would be a composite measure based on pupil’s gain in information, ratings by competent observers, and ratings based on the opinion of pupils. Having regard to the variation in a teacher’s performance when conditions are varied, any such assessment should include a statement of the type of pupils, of the size of the class, and of the subject matter being taught when it was made. The following statements are made as arguments against the criterion of pupil change in measuring teacher efficiency: (1) The principle is simple; the application has proved less simple. In 30 years no suitable criterion of pupil change has emerged. (2) There is need to measure not only knowledge gained, but changes in attitudes, ideals, purpose, and personality. (3) The safeguard that groups are comparable and that differences measured are statistically significant are not enough; pupils mature, but do not mature at the same rate. (4) Sandiford is quoted to the effect that changes may be due to good teaching and thorough grounding at earlier stages. (5) Changes noted may be due to habits of accuracy and industry inculcated by earlier teachers, or by parents and others outside the school. (6) There is question whether the ability to “get results” is good teaching. For example, cramming and other cases of information learned and quickly forgotten.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farmer, Paul. “Exam for Teachers of English, “ National Education Association Journal, XLII (February 1953), p. 81. Self-appraisal for English Teachers. Ten questions for the English teacher to ask of his own performance.
   Google Scholar
• Flanagan, John C. Critical Requirements for Research Personnel. Pittsburgh: American Institute for Research, 1949. Description of the “critical incidents” technique, used later in studies of teacher competence.
   Google Scholar
• Franzen, Carl G. F. “What Supervisory Practices Promote Teacher Growth and Cooperation?” National Association of Secondary School Principals Journal, XXXVI (April 1952), pp. 17–26. One of the supervisory practices described is the use of “improvement sheets” designed to help the improvement of teacher service in specific areas or subjects.
   Google Scholar
• Gage, N. L., and Orleans, Jacob S. “Guiding Principles in the Study of Teacher Effectiveness, “ Journal of Teacher Education, III (December 1952), pp. 294–8. A frame of reference for research is presented: 1. Research should be concerned with teacher effectiveness rather than with over-all effect of all the factors in the teaching situation (not curriculum, instructional materials, etc.,), but does consider all influences of teacher. 2. Concerned with general conceptions of effectiveness rather than with particular conceptions to suit special purposes. (Not selection, determining merit-salary increments, etc.) 3. Concerned, at least initially, with conceptual analysis of the research job; later (probably beginning now) more attention should be given to details of implementation. 4. It is beyond the province of the present research committee to formulate ends of education; therefore, concern is with the effective teacher, rather than with the good teacher. A set of guiding principles for research is offered, and a conclusion that many detailed studies will be necessary and that caution in terminology is necessary.
   Google Scholar
• Gage, Nathaniel L. and Suci, George. “Social Perception and Teacher Pupil Relationships,” Journal of Educational Psychology, XLII (March 1952), pp. 144–52. Data from No. 5. Review of a research in which some agreement was found between student ratings of teachers and social perception scores which were a comparison of teachers’ interpretation of pupil attitudes and pupil attitudes as revealed by a questionnaire.
   Google Scholar
• Gans, Roma. “How Evaluate Teachers?” Educational Leadership, VIII (November 1950), pp. 77–81. A picture of the short-comings, needs, and possibilities for the future in teacher appraisal. Some encouraging signs are seen in the relationship between curriculum improvement (as a teacher-participation activity) and teacher growth. Three avenues for future action: 1. Check, and whenever possible undo, practices that may be destructive of personality growth of teachers. 2. Continuation and further extension of curriculum studies in individual schools, and on a system-wide basis, should be encouraged. 3. Research studies planned cooperatively with leaders from other districts should be made.
   Google Scholar
• Gragg, William L. “Experiences With Merit-Salary Promotions, “ American School Board Journal, CXIX (July 1949), pp. 23–5. Describes the 1947 New York salary law, and the process used in Ithaca to set up procedure. (Election of Committees, etc.) Committees drew up standards of appraisal, set up the administration of standards. The evaluation score sheet used was a weighted rating card: A. Direct service to pupils 80 points B. Community Service 5 “ C. Personal Qualities (School, non-school) activities, and professional growth 10 “ D. Education 5 “ The law required that no more than 75% of those eligible need be promoted; of 173 teachers, 33 were “eligible”; all 33 were marked “exceptional”, and all were therefore given the increases. “The fact that the Board pursued a forward-looking policy of promotion was probably the greatest single factor in assuring a successful continuance of the program. “.
   Google Scholar
• Gragg, William L. “Ithaca’s Revised Teacher Rating Plan, “ American School Board Journal, CXXV (October 1952), pp. 41–2. A follow-up of previous reference 38. The changes in procedure brought about by the action of a committee of teachers and administrators in view of the 1951 revision of the 1947 salary law. In the new plan, there is no numerical rating, but teachers are evaluated by principals through the use of an instrument containing the following main areas, with specific suggestions under each: I. Direct service to pupils; II. Teaching Ability; III. Contribution of the teacher to the total school program; IV. Personal Qualities of the Teacher; V. Professional growth of the teacher. In the specific items under these main headings (not shown here) the teacher is marked Excellent, Good, or Fair, with a plus or minus for each, making nine classifications. For each of the main categories shown above, and for a total evaluation, the teacher is marked Excellent, Good, or Fair, with no plus or minus signs. (The 1951 revision of the law removed the requirements for merit-salary increments.)
   Google Scholar
• Grim, Paul R., and Hoyt, Cyril J. “Appraisal of Teaching Competency,” Educational Research Bulletin, XXXI, No. 4 (April 1952), pp. 85–91 “Our approach of ‘getting within the individual’ in order to see just how he autistically views the world is the antithesis of taking at face value the belief that stimulus situations are much the same for all pupils …. This paper centers largely around the development of two new instruments for the evaluation of teaching competencies. One samples student’s feeling directly on a personalized level. The other utilizes principal’s ratings as criteria upon which to build the student’s instrument. The two instruments which we are developing are known as the student reaction inventory, and the teacher characteristic chart. ” The study is only in formative stages, and no statistical findings are yet available. While the devising of the instruments has been to some extent an “armchair” process, it is hoped that empirical validation now in progress will provide evidence of the soundness of the rationale.
   Google Scholar
• Grotke, Earl M. “Professional Distance and Teacher Evaluation, “ Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIV (January 1953), pp. 127–30. Two concepts are brought into education, adapted from the vocabulary of sociology. Professional Distance—defined as the frequency and divergency between points of view held by professional workers as to their role; Professional Role of the Good Teacher—the professionally determined behavior expected or required of persons in a specific professional position, i. e., the position of the classroom teacher. The hypothesis presented here is that the lengths of professional distance would increase as ratings decrease from good to fair and from fair to poor. Since an evaluation of another’s teaching is an expression of the difference between one’s own concept of another’s teaching and one’s concept of the professional role of the good teacher. The data did not warrant conclusions which would indicate that the situation was as clear-cut as the hypothesis stated, but there is evidence that the effect is involved in principal’s evaluations of teacher efficiency.
   Google Scholar
• Hagman, Harlan L. The Administration of American Public Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951, pp. 148–53; 200–202. Chapter IX “The Nature of Democratic Supervision, “ discusses “inspection and rating” as a “low order” of democratic supervision, as opposed to the “democratic social leadership” at the other end of the scale. “Rating scales can be used with benefit to instruction and may be employed on any level of supervision. Teachers and supervisors may welcome the rating scale as an inventory of teacher abilities and as a useful tool in the determination of the need for improvement…. But when the rating scale is used in a supervisory program maintained only on the level of inspection and rating, the scale is often an instrument damaging to teacher morale….”.
   Google Scholar
• Hampton, Nellie Delight. “An Analysis of Supervisory Ratings of Elementary Teachers Graduated from Iowa State Teachers College, “ Journal of Experimental Education, XX (December 1951), pp. 179–215. This study had two stated purposes: (1) To find out what ratings can tell about a particular group of Iowa State graduates; and (2) to obtain suggestions regarding rating schemes or systems in general. Related to the second purpose, there was an analysis of ratings given at the same time using different instruments. Some conclusions: “Correlations between success in trait ratings of the same persons were all different from zero at the one percent level, trait by trait, when the raters were the same, and nominally equal to zero when the raters were changed…. The high correlations between the trait ratings on the five point scale and the general category rating seem to indicate that our individual trait ratings actually are adding very little to our knowledge of our teachers as a group which a general category rating could not supply. This does not mean that individual trait ratings may not be desired for diagnostic purposes, but for indications of general merit, one general rating may suffice. ” There are other conclusions.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horrocks, John E., and Schoonover, Thelma L. “Self-Evaluation as a Means of Growth for Teachers in Service: Use of a Self-Analysis Questionnaire,” Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXVI (February 1950), pp. 83–9. A general discussion of the difficulties and advantages of teacher evaluation leads to a statement that the benefits accruing to teachers from evaluation may be most advantageously gained through a process of self-evaluation. Self-acceptance and cooperation in devising the evaluative procedure are involved. This seems the optimum approach from the standpoint of, (1) readiness, (2) self-acceptance, and (3) incentive for improvement.
   Google Scholar
• “How Do You Rate with Business?” Grade Teacher, LXIX (April 1952), p. 76.
   Google Scholar
• Jarecke, Walter H. “Evaluating Teaching Success Through the Use of the Teaching Judgment Test,” Journal of Educational Research, XL (May 1952), pp. 683–94. A report of a research project, the purpose of which was to design a test to evaluate some of the factors which contribute to the success of teachers on the secondary school level, in relation to their performance in the classroom, associations with other teachers, and other aspects. Some conclusions: Teacher experience seems to have a bearing on teacher success. Some unnamed factors, possibly “stability,” affect teaching success. There seems to be a relationship between scholastic ability and teaching success as measured by the Teaching Judgment Test. There are other conclusions on about the same level of significance.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, Alfred C. “Determining Critical Requirements for Teachers,” Journal of Experimental Education, XX (September 1951), pp. 79–85 “This paper describes one of the approaches employed by the Teacher Characteristics Study in attempting to define criteria of teaching effectiveness.” The approach described is that known as the “critical incidents technique.” (See Domas, Simeon J. “Report of an Exploratory of Teacher Competence,” ref. 28.) Critical requirements are set forth under three categories: Personal Qualities, Professional Qualities, and Social Qualities. Effective and ineffective examples are given under each. “It is suggested that the critical incidents technique might be employed profitably in local school situations in developing valid bases for teacher evaluation, and as an aid to the in-service growth of teachers.”.
   Google Scholar
• Kandel, I. L. “What is Teaching Competence?” School and Society, LXXIII (May 1951), pp. 315–16. A discussion of the implications of the question related to the rights of parents, teacher’s associations, Board of Education, and other groups in the dismissal of a teacher. The case in point was in a report of the National Commission for the Defense of Democracy Through Education. The author is critical of the position taken in the report.
   Google Scholar
• Kauffman, Grace I. “How Professional Am I? A Self-Test,” National Education Association Journal, XXXIX (April 1950), p. 286 “A Self-Test designed to emphasize the positive.” It has items grouped under six areas: Teacher-Pupil Relationships, Teacher-Teacher Relationships, Teacher-Administrator Relationships, Teacher-Board of Education Relationships, Teacher-Public Relationships, and Teacher-Professional Relationships.
   Google Scholar
• Lacy, Susan, Miller, John L., and Wardner, Phillip. “Merit Rating: A Symposium,” Educational Leadership, IX (October 1951), pp. 17–21. A year after the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development pamphlet on rating was published (see reference 13), three educators state their reactions to the viewpoint expressed therein. Susan Lacy makes a sympathetic case for the usefulness of the pamphlet, reviewing how “Young Principal” finds it impossible to rate, and enlists the cooperation of the teachers in continuous evaluation. John L. Miller is critical of “Better Than Rating” and asks for continuing study of the possibility of relating salary and evaluation. “Moreover, to contend that rating of the teacher on tenure is impractical, and at the same time to stress the value of pre-employment rating, is not consistent.” Phillip Wardner extols the timeliness and virtue of “Better Than Rating.”.
   Google Scholar
• Lamke, Tom Arthur. “Personality and Teaching Success,” Journal of Experimental Education, XX (December 1951), pp. 217–59. The study sought to answer two questions: Are the personalities of good and poor teachers, as evaluated by Cattell’s “16 Personality Factor Test” characteristically different? Are the personalities of good and poor teachers, as evaluated by a paired comparison scale based on Cattell’s “20 Surface Traits” characteristically different? Results were not very conclusive, but, for example, it “appears that good teachers are likely, more than poor teachers, to be gregarious, adventurous, frivolous, to have abundant emotional responses, strong artistic or sentimental interests, to be interested in the opposite sex, to be polished, fastidious and cool. Poor teachers are likely, more than good teachers, to be shy, cautious, conscientious, to lack emotional response, artistic or emotional interests, to have comparatively light interest in the opposite sex, to be clumsy, easily pleased and more attentive to people.” There is an implication “that good teachers are good for different reasons, and that poor teachers fail for varying reasons…. It appears that success may be a ‘balance’. “.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leeds, Carrol H. “A Scale for Measuring Teacher-Pupil Attitudes and Teacher-Pupil Rapport,” Psychological Monographs, LXIV (1950), pp. 1–24. A scale developed for measuring teacher-pupil attitudes correlated .43, .48, and .45, with principal’s ratings, observer’s ratings, and pupil’s ratings. (Data from Ref. 5.)
   Google Scholar
• Leeper, Robert R. “Fred Brown vs. the Elusive Ideal Teacher, “ National Education Association Journal, XXXIX (December 1950), pp. 672–4. A review of the philosophy and content of “Better Than Rating, “ (see Ref. 13) in which are discussed the disadvantages of teacher rating plans: 1. Teacher rating plans often fail to respect individual personality. 2. Rating plans tend to encourage conformity rather than acting on thinking. 3. Most rating plans fail to use cooperative social action. 4. Most plans lack qualities of cooperative evaluation a. Rating plans are an intermittent rather than a continuous form of evaluation, and are directly or indirectly imposed from the outside, rather than developed as an integral part of the learning-teaching situation. b. In most rating plans, evaluation is a consensus of people in status positions, rather than a cooperative responsibility of all persons affected by the process. c. Plans often work to prevent, rather than to foster and guide, change in behavior. d. When plans work for behavioral change the direction of change is imposed by the plan, rather than evolved cooperatively by the group being evaluated. e. Most plans leave little or no opportunity for intelligent selection and use of the best techniques for gaining evidence of behavioral change. A “better way” is indicated: The school community must organize in a voluntary cooperative manner to encourage professional growth. The school community must provide its teachers with rich opportunities for professional growth and development, and must give attention to several important personnel practices.
   Google Scholar
• Lindsey, Margaret. “Ask Yourself Some Questions,” National Education Association Journal; XL (March 1951), pp. 173–5. A discussion of the criteria of the good teacher for self-evaluation. Are you happy? Are you social? Informed? Flexible? Interested in children? Democratic? Proud of your profession?.
   Google Scholar
• Lodge, Evan. “Check Sheet—More Help for the New Teacher, “ Clearing House, XXV (May 1951), pp. 548–9. A description of a simple check sheet for the supervision personnel to use in connection with visitation. Only “best” things are found in the list to be checked.
   Google Scholar
• McCall, William A. Measurement of Teacher Merit, Publication No. 284. Raleigh, N. C.: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 1952. 40 Report of a research in teacher-merit. The general plan was to measure comprehensibly the growth produced in each class by the teacher of that class, to weight the elements of growth according to importance, to secure a single composite figure for all growths made by each class, to correct this weighted crude growth for capacity to grow and for differences in class size if the latter appeared to influence growth, and then to correlate a large number of measures of the teacher’s traits with this “purified” criterion of each teacher’s worth as a teacher. Growth was measured by standardized tests in the following areas: General Mental Ability, General Education (including Citizenship, Forseeing Consequences, Understanding the World, and Prejudice), Range of Knowledge and Experience, Social Behavior, Creative Composition, and Handwriting. More than a score of old and new methods of evaluating teachers were compared with the pupil growth thus measured. None of them correlated high. Principal’s ratings correlated slightly negatively. Experience showed little relationship. Training showed just a little more relationship (roughly, about 10% of the difference in teacher efficiency could be attributed to training). The best correlation of all was found to be confidential teacher self-ratings (plus 39% index of validity, corrected for attenuation to plus 59%). Also fairly high was pupil rating of their teachers on a social behavior scale. “All things considered, this study failed to find any system of measuring teacher’s merit which the writer is willing to recommend being adapted as the basis of paying the salaries of teachers. This study did establish…. that the system of merit rating by official superiors…. is of no value… (p. 37).” “This whole study stands or falls on the acceptability…. of the proved ability of the teacher to produce growth in pupils (as the criterion)… If the reader does not agree that this criterion is the chief and proper one, he will be unable to accept any of the conclusions of this research. ”.
   Google Scholar
• McCartha, Carl W. “The Practice of Teacher-Evaluation in the South-East in 1948,” Journal of Educational Research, XLIV (October 1950), pp. 122–8. Results of a study in which questionnaires were sent to city and county school administration units in ten southeastern states. Of 778 replies received, 671 favored teacher evaluation, but only 170 (about 25%) were doing any evaluating. Other figures are given and observations made.
   Google Scholar
• McGowan, W. N. “The Measure of a Successful Teacher, “ American School Board Journal, CXXI (July 1950), pp. 17–19. A re-evaluation of the qualities that mark a successful teacher in the light of progress made during recent years.
   Google Scholar
• McNerney, Chester T. Educational Supervision. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951, pp. 117–23.
   Google Scholar
• Mazzei, Renato. “Desirable Traits of Successful Teachers,” Journal of Teacher Education, II (December 1951), pp. 291–4. An analysis of the traits approved and disapproved in their teachers by junior high school boys and girls. Similar to the Witty “Quiz Kids” study. (See ref. 99.)
   Google Scholar
• “‘Merit’ Rating—What’s Wrong With It? New York’s AFT Members Give the Answer,” American Teacher, XXXIII (April 1949), pp. 7–8. A summary of the reasons why the AFT opposes the basing of salaries on merit, from a letter from the Empire State Federation of Teachers Unions protesting the endorsement of the 1947 New York Salary Law by the State Board of the American Association of University Women. Seven main reasons for the opposition of the AFT are described: (1) The school is not an industry and the products are intangibles whose lasting effects may not be apparent until much later; they cannot be measured. Who is qualified to set monetary values on them ? (2) The unreliability and lack of validity in rating; the influence of personal relations and bias. (3) Administrators lack time to make even subjective judgments, based on visits and observation. (4) The inevitability of a “popularity contest, “ with teachers being “yes-men” instead of cooperating and sometimes criticizing. (5) Do we want teachers or club-women? The teacher often has little time to join and participate in community organizations. (6) The unworkability, in experience, of merit-salary laws. (7) Teachers, supervisors, administrators and outstanding educators oppose it.
   Google Scholar
• Michael, William B., Herrold, Earle E., and Cryan, Eugene W. “Survey of Student-Teacher Relationships,” Journal of Educational Research, XLIV (May 1951), pp. 657–73. It was found that boys and girls prefer teachers who allowed voluntary answers to questions to those who called on specific individuals, and also prefer teachers who participate in extra-curricular activities. Other findings.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, Leo R. “Let Those Who Teach Rate for Merit, “ School Executive, LXVIII (May 1949), pp. 55–6. Proposes a rating system consisting of anonymous ratings made for each teacher by every other teacher. Such ratings would count for no less than the supervisory ratings made by the principal. There would be no ratings by supervisors who visit only occasionally. A number of justifications are given for the plan, among which are: Teachers may be biased and prejudicial, but it is likely that 20 teachers will be fairer than one administrator; teachers would benefit from seeing what colleagues think of their services. (Data from ref. 5.)
   Google Scholar
• Milwaukee Public Schools, Office of the Superintendent. Report on Teacher Evaluation, Compiled by Harold S. Vincent, Milwaukee Public Schools, April 1951, 8 pp. Brief report of a survey of teacher evaluation practices in 22 large cities, a discussion of the purposes of teacher evaluation, and recommendations for the Milwaukee Public Schools.
   Google Scholar
• Misner, Paul J. “Teacher Rating is the Responsibility of the Entire Profession,” Nations Schools, XLVIII, No. 2 (August 1951), pp. 23–4. Starting out with a frank criticism of the A. S. C. D. pamphlet “Better Than Rating,” the author reviews the need for evaluation and for relating salary to merit. A plan used successfully in Glencoe, Illinois, is explained. “Rating done exclusively by supervisors and administrators is a red herring employed by the commission (in “Better Than Rating”) to confuse the issue and to discourage creative thinking and experimentation…. Teachers are being evaluated continuously whether or not any planned provision is made for evaluation…. The development of salary schedule policies is inextricably related to the problem of evaluation…. It is inevitable that the achievement of better salaries for teachers will be accompanied by a public demand for…. evidence that teachers are rendering continuing effective and competent service.”.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison, J. Cayce. “History of New York State’s Approach to the Problems of Relating Teacher’s Salaries to the Quality of Teaching Service, “ Harvard Educational Review, XX (Spring 1952), pp. 124–32. Dr. Morrison sketches briefly the historical background out of which the teacher’s salary legislation of 1947 and 1951 developed. He indicates the problems which confronted the several committees concerned with legislative recommendations, the solutions tentatively proposed, and the final recommendations. The treatment is sympathetic to the New York plan of merit-salaries.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison, J. Cayce. “It’s Time to Adjust Salaries to Quality of Teaching,” Nations Schools, LI (February 1953), pp. 45–6. The case for salary related to merit against the background of the experience of New York with the salary law of 1947 revised in 1951. “Teachers themselves can and must make the chief contribution to developing the theory and practice of evaluating teaching.”.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison, J. Cayce, and Burke, Arvid J. “Basing Salaries on Quality of Teaching. A Defense and a Criticism of New York’s Merit Law,” Nations Schools, XLIV, No. 3 (September 1949), pp. 52–4. In this defense of the law, written by Morrison, and the criticism written by Burke, is a fairly complete description of the New York Salary Law of 1947, and also a development of arguments both for and against such rating of teacher to determine salary.
   Google Scholar
• Mott, E. B. “Teacher Failures in the Public Schools,” Agricultural Education Magazine, XXII (March 1950), pp. 208–9.
   Google Scholar
• National Education Association, Department of Classroom Teachers, and Research Division. Teacher Rating, Discussion Pamphlet No. 10. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, April 1950, 24 pp. An informal discussion of the rating problem. As to the reasons for rating: “Estimates of a teacher’s work are necessary for two purposes: As a basis for administrative decisions, and as a basis for improving instruction. The ‘merit’ of a teacher is a guiding principle for each of these purposes. “ On the criteria of good rating: “It should be objective, reliable, and valid, as a measure of teaching success or some important aspect of teaching…. Should be so administered as to minimize tensionand embarrassment between rater and teacher which is almost bound to occur when one adult judges the work of another .” The following are suggested as a basis for rating, with the recommendation that a composite basis is best: Pupil progress (several disadvantages mentioned), methods of teaching, personality, mental attributes, contributions to school and community, and growth and development. The types of scales in common use are: Check list, guided comment sheet, characterization report, descriptive report, and ranking report. As an alternative to rating, the use of the Cumulative Personnel Record is suggested. “The collection of supporting evidence for rating opens the way to the use of a cumulative record.” Such a file would contain evidence presented before employment, evidence of work done, indications of prestige, personal growth. A table is presented with statistics relative to teachers’ opinions on rating.
   Google Scholar
• National Education Association, Research Division. “Teacher Personnel Procedures, 1950-51: Employment Conditions inService,” Research Bulletin, XXX (April 1952), pp. 33–64. See “Appraisal of Service,” pp. 48–9. Two tables are presented with a number of interesting and pertinent statistics on teacher evaluation. Cities are classified into groups, according to population, and the statistics presented for each group. Some of the items on which figures are given: Number of cities rating various groups and classifications of employees, how many give copies of rating to the teachers, number which use no ratings, types of rating scales in use, and the uses made of the ratings.
   Google Scholar
• National Education Association, Research Division and American Association of School Administrators. Promotion and Appraisal Procedures in City School Systems, 1950-51, Educational Research Circular No. 2, (February 1953), 28 pp. Contains two tables from questionnaire research data. One is concerned with Procedures in Selection of Teachers for Promotion and the other with Methods and Procedures of Appraisal. Much of this data is the same as that given in the previous reference 71.
   Google Scholar
• Ojemann, Ralph H. “Identifying Effective Classroom Teachers,” in Bases for Effective Learning, Thirty-First Yearbook, Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association (September 1952), pp. 130–8. An attempt to answer the question, “What kinds of teachers are effective in the classroom?” “We cannot locate the effective classroom teacher by taking into account only knowledge of subject matter taught, or interest in teaching…. or any other single factor. The effective teacher, in the light of our present knowledge, has a combination of several factors…. If we wish to locate the teacher who develops favorable attitudes in children,… we should observe whether (he) is interested in working with them, rather than in dominating them; whether he attempts to guide them by fear, ridicule, sarcasm, and partiality, or by a laissez faire or inconsistent procedure.”.
   Google Scholar
• Orleans, Jacob S., and others. “Some Preliminary Thoughts on the Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness,” Journal of Educational Research, XLV (May 1952), pp. 641–8 “Perhaps a major weakness of educational research has been the failure to do the basic thinking which is needed to insure that the right questions are being asked and that sound planning is being done. In dealing with a problem which is as abstruse and complex as that of teacher effectiveness, much time must be devoted at first to reading and to deliberations. The present paper summarizes the thinking done in this earlier stage.” The paper presents a comprehensive look into the difficulties which must be faced by workers in this field. The basic concept is that the ultimate criteria of teacher effectiveness is change in pupil behavior; but that proximate criteria, or predictors of the ultimate criteria, may be found and identified.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parent, N. J. “Evaluation of Good Teaching,” Michigan Education Journal, XXX (October 1952), pp. 179–80.
   Google Scholar
• Pearman, W. I. “Toward a Supervisor-Teacher Partnership in the Evaluation of Teaching,” High Points, XXXI (May 1949), pp. 22–30. The evaluation referred to is that which takes place when or after a supervisor visits a teacher. The partnership is in planning, carrying out and evaluating the observed teaching.
   Google Scholar
• “Policies Relating to Salaries for Teachers,” Journal of Teacher Education, III (June 1952), p. 113. A statement of policy adopted by the commission in 1952, which states minimums for experienced and inexperienced teachers, involves single salary standards based on preparation and experience and does not mention merit salaries.
   Google Scholar
• “Rating Probationary Teachers,” American School Board Journal, CXIX (July 1949), pp. 30. A new form for rating probationary teachers, worked out by a committee and presented to the New York City Board of Superintendents, to replace an obsolete scheme. Principals are asked to check the competencies of beginning teachers under five headings and to add recommendations for permanent appointment: (1) Personal and professional Qualities (8 sub-headings), (2) Pupil Guidance and Instruction (10 sub-headings), (3) Classroom Management (4 sub-headings), (4) Participation in School and Community Activities (3 sub-headings), and (5) Principal’s Estimate of General Fitness (Additional Remarks).
   Google Scholar
• Rechard, O. H. “Appraising and Rewarding Teacher Effectiveness,” National Conference on Higher Education Addresses, (1951) pp. 194–8.
   Google Scholar
• Reeder, Ward G. The Fundamentals of Public School Administration, Revised Edition. New York: Macmillan Co., 1951, Chapter IX, pp. 216–36. Discusses philosophy, need and methods of evaluation. Questions for discussion.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, Dorothy. “Implications of Views Concerning the Typical School Teacher,” Journal of Educational Sociology, XXIII (April 1950), pp. 482–7. Lists of twenty-one adjectives were given to students and to teachers with instructions to mark those most often used by the public to describe teachers. Inferences are drawn from what students believe the public thinks of teachers, and from what teachers believe the public thinks of teachers.
   Google Scholar
• Ryans, David G. “The Criteria of Teaching Effectiveness,” Journal of Educational Research, XLII (May 1949), pp. 690–9. Out of the problems and experience relating to the National Teachers Examinations, emerge a quest for criteria of teaching effectiveness. “Teaching is effective to the extent that the teacher is able to provide ways and means that are favorable to the development of understandings, work habits, desirable attitudes, and adequate personal adjustment on the part of the pupils.” The criteria considered are (1) Ratings of teachers, and (2) measures of pupil change. After reviewing the difficulties, safeguards and lack of research relating to each, it is suggested that it is important to find secondary criteria, or factors that reflect the basic criterion; those could be used as reliable guides to teacher effectiveness.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryans, David G. “A Study of Criterion Data,” (“A Factor Analysis of Teacher Behaviors in the Elementary School”), Educational and Psychological Measurement, XII (Autumn 1952), pp. 333–344. An answer was sought to the question: Should the statistical analysis of predictors (of teaching success) be carried out with regard to a single overall criterion, or should the research proceed on the assumption that the criterion consists of several dimensions? By using trained observers working with a prepared form (the Classroom Observation Scale), noting both teacher and pupil behavior, and applying factor analysis, it was indicated that the criterion did consist of several dimensions, and that these were associated for predictive purposes. Five factors emerged from the analysis:.
   Google Scholar
• Factor A: Appears to be defined in terms of originality, adaptability and tolerance.
   Google Scholar
• Factor B: A business-like, organized approach.
   Google Scholar
• Factor C: Two clusters, (a) understanding, kindly, fair approach, and (b) tendency to be composed, steady, easy-going.
   Google Scholar
• Factor D: Approachable, friendly, tactful, gregarious.
   Google Scholar
• Factor E: Related to superficial appearance, as physique, voice, etc “It is of interest to note that the pupil behavior traits contribute significantly to factors A and B, but that these traits have zero loadings on Factors C, D, and E. This may suggest that pupil behavior in class may be, to a considerable extent, a function of the teacher’s ability to (1) stimulate the pupils and (2) maintain effective class control, i.e., to maintain situations in which the pupils are alert and responsible and are participating in constructive activities.” Another interesting fact brought out was with regard to the correlations between assessments of teachers by different observers. These “ranged from 0. 68 to 0. 84 when the assessments of all teachers observed by the same observers were considered.” This study is a part of a research subsidized by the Grant Foundation and sponsored by the American Council on Education. It is an aspect of the work known as the Teacher Characteristics Study.
   Google Scholar
• Ryans, David G. “A Study of the Extent of Association of Certain Professional and Personal Data with Judged Effectiveness of Teacher Behavior,” Journal of Experimental Education, XX (1951), pp. 67–77. A progress report on the work of the Teacher Characteristics Study, under the directorship of the author. Trained observers judge the effectiveness of classroom teaching, and the data have been compared with the results of professional and personal inventories.
   Google Scholar
• Scates, Douglas E. “The Good Teacher: Establishing Criteria for Identification, “ Journal of Teacher Education, I (June 1950), pp. 137–41. Discussion of the complexity involved in all attempts to develop criteria of teacher competence. “The defining of good teaching is not impossible; it is difficult because of the psychological subtleties and because of the interplay of many factors. It cannot be accomplished in terms of any single pattern of characteristics unless these are made very general. ” “Through a careful balance between research studies and careful insightful thinking, we can expect to make progress even though this area may be difficult.”.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, A. N. “A Study of the Discriminating Efficiency of Certain Tests of Primary Source Personality Traits of Teachers,” Journal of Experimental Education, XIX (September 1950), pp. 63–93. The problem attached in this study was the predicting efficiency of certain personality tests as far as teaching success was concerned. These were measured against the criteria of marks, ratings in student teaching, and ratings in service. A few, but no very significant relationships were discovered between the tests and teaching success as measured by ratings. There are recommendations for further research.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shane, Harold G. “Seven Types of Teacher Appraisal,” Nations Schools, L (July 1952), pp. 58–9. From a survey of “thirty-five outstanding school districts” in various parts of the United States, comes this digest of findings relating to teacher appraisal. Seven types of evaluation were in use and were reported in the following frequencies: Systems Rating Scale or Check-list 8 Written reports following classroom visits 7 No formal rating plan 15 Self-appraisal form prepared by the teacher 10 Verbal reports, principal to central offices 16 Subjective appraisal by superintendent 10 Group evaluations by teacher’s fellow workers 4 There were 70 responses (above) from 35 districts, so it is obvious that most systems used, on the average, at least two of these methods. Most of the administrators sampled felt that teachers should not be merit-rated to determine progress upward on the salary schedule, but in an apparently contradictory stand, five out of six superintendents felt that teachers should be dismissed when they were evaluated and found to be deficient in ability or personality. “This seems to be a common-sense attitude rather than an inconsistency. It is absolutely necessary in the interest of the children for the administrator to discharge persons who are ineffectual in the classroom. It is not, however, necessary to establish degrees of excellence among capable teachers. ”.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, Ray H., and others. “A Study of Resourcefulness in Attacking Professional Problems,” School Review, LX (December 1952), pp. 535–40. “Resourcefulness” was measured by the number and quality of suggested solutions or responses to a hypothetical problem situation in a classroom. It was found that certain groups of teachers classified according to grade levels and subjects taught were significantly different from others.
   Google Scholar
• Spalding, Willard B. “New York’s Unwise Plan of Recognizing Merit in Teacher’s Salaries,” American School Board Journal, CXIX (July 1949), pp. 21–3. An argument against the principle of merit salaries, and a description of the “specious” reasoning which, it is said, underlies such attempts as the 1947 New York law. This article is in part a critical response to one by Francis T. Spaulding, in the Phi Beta Kappan of July 1947, explaining and praising the law.
   Google Scholar
• Symonds, Percival M. “Reflections on Observations of Teachers,” Journal of Educational Research, LXIII (May 1950), pp. 688–96. The author observed 24 teachers preparatory to a study on the relation between the personality of the teacher, the mode of teaching, and the pupil response in the classroom. Comments and insights resulting from those observations are presented. The variation and complexity of personalities was great and it appeared that there was no one “best” type of teacher. Almost all types of personalities were found among successful teachers, and the accepted belief that only normal, well adjusted persons should be teachers seemed not to hold, for some of the successful teachers observed were definitely neurotic and their neuroticism contributed to their success as teachers. There were some general characteristics of the successful teacher that seemed to cut across all the variations in personality. They were all more or less secure and confident; they were interested and liked boys and girls, and they were able to accept them. Sincerity seemed an important factor. Another interesting observation: “In general the school takes on the color and mood and atmosphere of those in administrative authority.” “So far as they can, the teachers will also play roles similar to those set by the principal as a pattern. The principal of a school sets the pace for the whole school—teachers and pupils.”.
   Google Scholar
• “Teachers Ask End of Rating, “ Scholastic, LVIII (February 7, 1951), p. 5t.
   Google Scholar
• “Teacher’s Marks Abolished: New Zealand Plan, “ Times Educational Supplement, No. 1945 (August 8, 1952), pp. 667. That the old system of numerical grading of teachers be abolished and be replaced by a system embodying promotion lists, was a recommendation reported in this news article. Other information about the old and the proposed new plan of teacher appraisal in New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Tiedeman, David V. “Pay for Teaching,” Harvard Educational Review, XXII (Spring 1952), pp. 97–112. Neither the “preparational” nor the “positional” salary schedule accomplishes the objective of paying teachers for the proficiency with which they educate children. There is a lack of evidence to support the conventional salary schedule. (The “preparational” type involves steps, usually years, of experience and degrees or other measures of preparation; the “positional” type refers to the kind of position: elementary, junior high, etc.) The usual arguments against merit salaries are criticized and a plan for the development of a merit-type salary schedule is proposed, involving: 1. joint effort of administrators, public, and teachers; 2. several levels of teaching efficiency defined for each teaching position; 3. lower salaries made ample; 4. large increments ($1500 for the first year, perhaps two or three more of $1000 each); 5. movement upward as rapidly as teacher warrants promotion. “The least convincing argument against the merit-type salary schedule is that we should continue to use our preparational type salary schedules until someone else devises a scheme for measuring teaching proficiency which is reliable and valid. This latter restriction is inconsistent, since it is the validity of the preparational type salary schedule which must be proved, and not that of the merit type…. if the assumptions are accepted that the purpose of paying teachers is to reward them for educating children, and that the proficiency with which they do this is not the same for all teachers…. The most insidious argument against the merit-type salary schedule is that it destroys the morale of a school system. “ Facts are listed, then “these arguments are indeed powerful ones. Certainly, if the solidity, mutual respect, and cooperativeness of a faculty is disintegrated because of the adaption of a merit-type salary schedule, the plan should be discontinued.” Again, p. 108, “the proposal for the adaption of a merit-type salary schedule is not likely to come from teachers. “.
   Google Scholar
• Tompkins, Ellsworth and Armstrong, W. Earl, “Teacher Ratings: Persistent Dilemma,” National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, XXXV (May 1951), pp. 25–31. In this review of the subject of teacher evaluation, the authors report impressions from a study of the literature: 1. There is a great deal of material printed, for, against, and in-between. 2. Earlier publications emphasize technique and manner, while of late there is more question raised as to the desirability of rating. 3. There is increasing mention of the complex factors involved. 4. There is growing concern for the morale factor, the effect of rating on teachers. 5. Increasing tendency to recognize self-evaluation and cooperative group evaluation as more productive of results. 6. There is still a great deal of bias and disagreement, not likely to decrease.
   Google Scholar
• Trump, J. Lloyd. “Merit Rating Puts the Cart Before the Horse,” Nations Schools, XLV (June 1950), pp. 51–3. Arguments for and against merit rating as they appear to the Board of Education member, the superintendent, the principal, and the teacher. When working conditions are considered in relation to the function of the teacher, it is seen that working conditions effect the efficiency of teaching. Various phases of the “job of the teacher” are analyzed, and in each case it is demonstrated that one of the important factors in efficient teaching is the condition under which the teaching is carried out. “It would seem desirable to seek first the correction of conditions under which teachers frequently work before placing emphasis on evaluation. “.
   Google Scholar
• Unzicker, Samuel P. “Ends and Means in Supervision,” Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXVI (November 1950), pp. 385–95. Supervision as a two-way process; democratic, non-authoritarian supervision. The second part of the article raises the question, “What part does appraisal, evaluation, ‘rating’, have in this process?” “One way for a teacher to be brought to accept appraisal by another might be to help to plan the items in any rating form, or at least to fully accept their implications.”.
   Google Scholar
• Vander Werf, Lester. “The Trouble With Rating Systems,” American School Board Journal, CXXV (August 1952), pp. 17–8. The author is sceptical of rating systems because they involve the following assumptions “all partly or completely false.” 1. that teaching can be accurately measured; 2. that administrators can be objective in their judgments; 3. that individual competitive situations encourage competence and high morale; 4. that teaching staffs lie on the curve of normal distribution. Suggestion of a positive program of improvement of instruction rather than merit rating.
   Google Scholar
• West, Allan M. “The Case For and Against Merit Rating,” School Executive, LXIX (June 1950), pp. 48–50. A statement of both sides of the case, for and against merit-type salary schedules.
   Google Scholar
• Witty, Paul. “Some Characteristics of the Effective Teacher,” Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXVI (April 1950), pp. 193–208. Describes the results obtained from an analysis of 14, 000 letters sent in as entrees for an essay contest sponsored by the “Quiz Kids” radio show, on the topic “The Teacher Who Has Helped Me the Most.” Twelve of the most often mentioned characteristics in the order of the frequency mentioned are: 1. Cooperative, democratic attitude 2. Kindness and considerateness 3. Patience 4. Wide interests 5. Pleasing personal appearance and manner 6. Fairness and impartiality 7. Sense of humor 8. Good disposition and consistent behavior 9. Interest in pupils’ problems 10. Flexibility 11. Use of recognition and praise 12. Unusual proficiency in subject A list of a dozen negative characteristics, things which pupils do not like, is also presented.
   Google Scholar