Teacher Evaluation Instruments and Processes: A Special Education Perspective

Overview & Synopsis

The purpose of this study was to identify the perceptual differences between general education teachers and special education teachers on teacher evaluation, and among special education teachers evaluated according to three different teacher evaluation systems (CEL 5D+ Teacher Evaluation Rubric, Charlotte Danielson's Framework for Teaching, and Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model) adapted by the districts in Washington State. The study also examined factors that may improve the special education teacher evaluation. A total of 234 certified teachers, including 37 special education teachers, in Washington State participated in the study. An online survey form of the modified Teacher Evaluation Profile (TEP) questionnaire was utilized to collect the perceptions of certified teachers on the teacher evaluation process. Significant response differences were found to exist between the perceptions of special education and general education teachers, particularly elementary school teachers, on their evaluators. The perceptions of special education teachers evaluated based on three different teacher evaluation systems were included in this study for descriptive purposes only due to about 76 percent of special education teachers participated in the study were evaluated based on Danielson, which implemented an alternative approach to evaluate the performance of special education teachers. Special education teachers perceived that the evaluation standards and the purpose of the evaluation were relatively clear to them, and the evaluation process promoted accountability and teacher growth. Recommendations for future studies are to examine the effect of the professional relations between special education teachers and their evaluators on the quality of the special education teacher evaluation, and the perceptions of special education teachers on teacher evaluation systems with different approaches to evaluate special education teachers. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]