Research literature highlights the principal as central to teacher evaluation. However, principal reports do not provide adequate information to document teacher quality. Good teacher evaluation adds multiple data sources such as client surveys, peer reviews of matenials, and pupil achievement data, which vary by teacher and setting. Principals should become knowledgeable about pupil gain data, costs of evaluation, sociology of teacher evaluation, and the problem of the bad teacher. Teacher evaluation can reassure external audiences that schools are doing a good job.

No abstract

The improvement of public school teacher evaluation is a topic of considerable interest in the research literature and in professional practice. One suggested direction for better evaluation is to develop sources of data about teacher performance in addition to the traditional administrator reports. Principal visits, particularly as a sole data source about teachers, have been criticized as inadequate and even misleading. Parent viewpoints of teacher performance have been discussed by a number of authors as a promising but undeveloped source of information for evaluation. The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of parent surveys in two Utah school districts where such surveys are a part of the career ladder teacher evaluation systems.

Teacher evaluation is key to understanding effective teacher practice, rewarding excellent performance, and improving training programs. Yet the current practice of principal visits and reports does not promise to promote reforms for teachers or teacher educators. In this study six lines of evidence of teaching impact or value were developed and tested with 281 K-12 classroom teachers. Teachers selected a minimum of four lines for promotion in a career ladder system. Administrator reports showed low variation and correlations with other measures. Student reports, parent surveys, and teacher tests produced sufficient variance for decisionmaking and moderate correlations with other measures. Professional activity and years of experience showed erratic relations. In general, the lines of evidence showed independence, suggesting that multiple measures may have tapped different constructs of quality.

With limited COVID-19-guidelines for institutions of higher education (IHEs), colleges and universities began the 2020–2021 academic year with varying approaches. We present a comprehensive COVID-19 prevention and mitigation approach at a residential university during the 2020–2021 academic year, along with campus SARS-CoV-2 transmission during this time. Risk management of COVID-19 was facilitated through (1) a layered approach of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention measures; (2) a robust committee structure leveraging institutional public health expertise; (3) partnerships with external health entities; and (4) an operations system providing both structure and flexibility to adapt to changes in disease activity, scientific evidence, and public health guidelines. These efforts collectively allowed the university to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission on campus and complete the academic year offering in-person learning on a residential campus. We identified 36 cases of COVID-19 among the 2037 in-person learners during the fall semester, 125 cases in the inter-semester break, and 169 cases among 2095 in-person learners during the spring semester. SARS-CoV-2 infection during the academic year was associated with gender (p = 0.04), race/ethnicity (p = 0.01), and sorority/fraternity membership (p < 0.01). Infection was not associated with undergraduate vs. graduate student status, Division I athlete status, or housing type (all p > 0.05). A multi-faceted public health approach was critical for reducing the impact of COVID-19 while carrying out the university’s educational mission.