Evaluators were commonly school administrators, professionals, ministers, and other prominent people. In truth, administration as a role carried out by highly qualified experts was absent until after the Civil War (Nolan & Hoover, 2010, 2). Standard procedures of administration emphasized rigid regulation and thorough evaluation of school facilities and capabilities. This evaluative framework continued to thrive until the 19th century, when the function of the highly qualified school administrator had been instituted (Nolan & Hoover, 2010, 2-3). Administrators were assigned to the duties of supervising the curriculum, enhancing the effectiveness of instructional methods exercised by teachers, and assessing academic achievement and teacher performance.
The efficiency theory of Frederick Taylor in the 20th century had a massive influence on the way administrators perceive their duties. This efficiency model, as implemented in schools by Franklin Bobbit, and colleagues, was regarded as one of the key factors that stimulated school administration processes in the early 20th century (Nolan & Hoover, 2010, 3). Afterward, the number of teacher performance measures increased significantly during the mid-20th century, leading to a broad range of teacher performance tools, despite weak consensus regarding what comprised competent and effective teaching.
In spite of a strong resistance from those who viewed performance measures as antithetical to intellect and democracy, the teacher performance measures were broadly implemented (Shinkfield & Stufflebeam, 1995, 9). The function of the administrator was simply teacher evaluation. The rest of the 20th century witnessed a struggle between the helping and inspectorial roles of the administrator that until now remains unresolved. In certain instances, the goal to witness innovations carried out encouraged school districts to build mechanisms of teacher evaluation that supervised implementation and reprimanded those who opposed secondary evaluation procedures (Shinkfield & Stufflebeam, 1995, 9-10).
The 1980s and the 1990s witnessed the emergence of various approaches to teacher evaluation, such as ‘reflective’ evaluation and ‘developmental’ evaluation (Nolan & Hoover, 2010, 4). Such approaches govern the existing context of evaluative processes in the area of preservice teacher training. Recently, attempts have been initiated to build teacher evaluation systems that can be scrutinized objectively with a rubric form.
Hacking, D. (2006). The Impact of Teacher Evaluation on Teacher Effectiveness in Support of Student Achievement: A Case Study. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest.
Lansman, R. (2006). A Case Study of Teacher Evaluation and Supervision at a High-Achieving Urban Elementary School. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest.
Marsh, C. (2009). Key Concepts for Understanding Curriculum. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Nolan, J. & Hoover, L. (2010). Teacher Supervision and Evaluation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Peterson, K. (2000). Teacher Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide to New Directions and Practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ribas, W. (2005). Teacher Evaluation that Works!!: The Educational, Legal, Public Relations [political] & Social-emotional [E.L.P.S.] Standards & Processes of Effective Supervision & Evaluation. Westwood, MA: R & L Education.
Shinkfield, A. & Stufflebeam, D. (1995). Teacher Evaluation: Guide to Effective Practice. New York: Springer.