THE 1975 NEW JERSEY PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION ACT AND ITS EFFECT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TEACHER EVALUATION (LEGISLATED POLICY, ADMINISTRATION, SUPERVISION)

This study was conducted to determine the degree to which the requirement of annual evaluation of tenured teaching staff members, included in the N.J. Public Education Act of 1975, (T.&E.) made a difference to either the administrators who processed the evaluations, or the teaching staff members who received them. Personal interviews were conducted with superintendents, principals, and teachers in four randomly selected schools in four different counties in New Jersey. The management of the teacher evaluation process was focused on five areas: (a) The effect of annual evaluation on the curriculum, (b) the interpretation of the State guidelines, (c) the comparison of the district\u27s evaluation program to the components for success in teacher evaluation, (d) the quality of education, and (e) staff development. The local districts in compliance with the State mandates, set goals for the students in the basic skills areas, involving teachers, parents, and administrators. Teachers stated that they were restricted in the activities which were carried on in their classrooms because of the concentration on raising test scores. This was the only evidence offered that the quality of education had improved. As principals managed annual evaluation they developed coping strategies in order to meet deadlines for contracts and monitoring. They were more visible, and aware, because of conferencing, of the goals of teachers and the variables in the classes they taught. Data strongly supported the idea that teacher evaluation must be supportive. Data pointed out the need for the training of evaluators when they must point out weaknesses in performance. Problems associated with data gathering for summary evaluations appeared to be the local district\u27s interpretation of the State guidelines. Pressures of paperwork was also a problem. The T.&E. planning model had all the components for success in evaluation. Districts following the guidlines, believed that their programs were successful, because they had followed the T.&E. model. The weakness in the evaluation process appeared to be in the area of staff development. It was offered only when new ideas were to be tried, or it was either on paper only, or non-existent. It was not on-going as suggested by the State guidelines