Despite many criticisms of traditional approaches to teacher evaluation and serious questions about its efficacy as a practice,1
the organizational conception of a supervisor judging the performance of a subordinate remains conventional practice. The philosophical grounding of traditional teacher evaluation lies in the literature that justifies the need for organizations to exercise control over members. 2
On the other hand, as new understandings of organizations alter traditional conceptions of how best to motivate employees, teacher evaluation practices grounded in a tradition of hierarchical control need to be examined.
By looking at the reported behaviors of expert and novice evaluators, the study described here provides qualitative data that support the conclusions reached by many past and present critics of teacher evaluation practices. For example, McLaughlin and Pfeifer argued that judgmental teacher evaluation contributed little to teacher learning and growth.3
Sergiovanni wrote of his hope that the day will come when supervision will not be needed.4
Gitlin and Price urged the development of teacher voice, by which they meant the development of an empowerment or a capacity whereby teachers could contest “against domination and oppression.”5
They further envisioned an evaluation system that required collaborative analysis, which they labeled “horizontal evaluation.”6