Frequency of Evaluation and Observation

Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policy

Frequency of Evaluation and Observation

The state should require annual evaluations of all teachers. This goal is ungraded in 2022.

Suggested Citation:
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2022). Frequency of Evaluation and Observation National Results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set].
Retrieved from: https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/national/Frequency-of-Evaluation-and-Observation-95

Do states require districts to evaluate all teachers each year?

2022
2019
Add previous year
Figure details

Yes: AZ, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, ID, IN, LA, MD, MS, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, PA, TN, UT, WA, WV

No: AL, AK, AR, CA, HI, IL, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, SD, TX, VT, VA, WI, WY

Footnotes
AL Non-probationary teachers: The state requires "At least 1/3 of tenured teachers in a school..." should complete the full educator effectiveness process annually.
AZ Districts may employ an alternative performance evaluation cycle for teachers designated in the highest performance classification for at least 3 consecutive years.
AR Probationary teachers: Summative evaluations not required for novice teachers. Non-probationary teachers: 1x every 4 years
CA Non-probationary teachers: Once teachers attain permanent status in California, they must be evaluated at least every other year. Teachers who have been employed by the district for at least 10 years may be evaluated only once every five years if they are highly qualified, and if the evaluator and certificated employee agree.
DE New system (DTGSS) will be fully operational in SY 2022-23.
FL Probationary teachers: First year of teaching: 2x/academic year
HI Non-probationary teachers: 1x every 5 years (except those rated less than effective; they must be evaluated the year following such rating)
IL Non-probationary teachers: 1x every 3 years Those rated as either needs improvement or unsatisfactory: 1x the following school year
IA 1x every 3 years
KS Probationary teachers: State defines "new teacher" Non-probationary teachers: Year 5+: 1x every 3 years
KY Non-probationary teachers: 1x every 3 years
ME At least once every three years.
MD Non-probationary teachers: For tenured teachers not rated ineffective: In the first year of the cycle, both professional practice and student growth are evaluated. If highly effective or effective, then the second- and third-year evaluations use the professional practice rating from the previous year, and student growth is based on the most recent data. A teacher may request a new review of professional practice along with student growth.
MA Non-probationary teachers: Experienced educators with rating of exemplary or proficient on a two-year self-directed growth plan: summative eval at least every two years; formative eval at end of first year. All others: 1x/year
MN Non-probationary teachers: Three-year professional review cycle that includes the following: an individual growth and development plan, a peer review process, the opportunity to participate in a professional learning community and at least one summative evaluation.
NE Non-probationary teachers: Only probationary teachers are required to "be evaluated at least once each semester." There is no set schedule for non-probationary teachers.
NV Non-probationary teachers that receive a rating of developing or ineffective must be evaluated once a year until they receive ratings of "highly effective" for two consecutive years. After receiving two consecutive ratings of "highly effective" teachers can skip one evaluation year.
NY Evaluations were not required during the 2020-2021 school year.
NC Non-probationary teachers: Low-performing schools: once per academic year Schools not designated as low-performing: once per academic year "unless a local board adopts rules that allow teachers with career status or on a four-year contract to be evaluated more or less frequently, provided that such rules are not inconsistent with State or federal requirements."
ND Probationary teachers: Teachers in their first three years of employment must be evaluated twice per academic year.
OH Teachers rated: Accomplished--once per three academic years Skilled--once per two academic years Developing or Ineffective--once per academic year
OR Non-probationary teachers: At least once every two academic years
RI Non-probationary teachers: Teachers rated: Highly Effective--once every three years Effective--once every two years All others annually
SC Probationary teachers: Induction teachers: Do not undergo traditional evaluations during their induction year. Although they are required to write one SLO per year. Annual Contract teachers: Undergo summative evaluations or can receive diagnostic assistance during at least one annual contract year. Non-probationary teachers: Continuing contract teachers--Evaluated on a "continuous basis." Continuing contract teachers must have either a summative or a goals based evaluation. Continuing contract teachers complete a comprehensive evaluation during their recertification year or once every five years, whichever comes first.
SD Non-probationary teachers: At least once every two academic years
TX A teacher with a rating of proficient or above on nine of sixteen dimensions can request a waiver for annual evaluations. Teachers with this waiver must be evaluated once every five years.
VT State's Guidelines for Teacher and Leader Effectiveness are recommendations, not requirements.
VA Probationary teachers: A probationary teacher in their first year of teaching "shall be evaluated informally at least once during the first semester of the school year." Non-probationary teachers: Once every three years
WA Non-probationary teachers: Comprehensive evaluation--once every six years Focused evaluation--Annually All teachers must be evaluated annually using a focused evaluation. Teachers with the two lowest comprehensive evaluation ratings must have annual comprehensive evaluations.
WI Probationary teachers: Although Wisconsin does not have a tenure policy and does not define probationary teachers, the state does distinguish evaluation frequency based on years of experience. Teachers in their first year of teaching must have an evaluation with at least one announced observation. Non-probationary teachers: Once every three years
WY Once a year, until classified as effective for two consecutive years, then once every three years.

Do states require multiple classroom observations?

2022
2019
Add previous year
Figure details

Yes. State requires all teachers to be observed multiple times.: AZ, DE, GA, ID, IN, LA, MS, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OH, OK, WA

Partially. State requires some teachers to be observed multiple times.: AL, AK, CO, CT, HI, IL, KS, MD, MN, NE, NV, OR, SC, TN, WV, WI

No. State does not require multiple observations for any teachers.: AR, CA, DC, FL, IA, KY, ME, MA, MI, MO, MT, NH, ND, PA, RI, SD, TX, UT, VT, VA, WY

Footnotes
AL 2x/observation cycle for non-probationary teachers
AZ Non-probationary teachers: Second classroom observation may be waived for a continuing teacher whose teaching performance based on the first classroom observation places the teacher in one of the two highest performance classifications for the current school year, unless the teacher requests a second observation.
AR Non-probationary teachers: Observations are required as part of summative evaluations; however, summative evaluations must only occur 1x/4 years. Novice teachers are exempt from evaluations.
CT First- and second-year teachers & those with below standard or developing ratings: 3 formal observations Those with proficient or exemplary ratings: 3 formal observations/reviews of practice, one of which must be a formal observation. Those with proficient or exemplary ratings who are not first-or second-year teachers: 1 formal in-class observation no less frequently than once every 3 years, and 3 informal in-class observations in all other years.
DE New system (DTGSS) will be fully operational in SY 2022-23.
GA Non-probationary teachers: Six observations (4 walkthroughs & 2 formative) OR two observations for those rated proficient or exemplary for the previous year. Probationary teachers: 4 walkthroughs & 2 formative
HI Non-probationary teachers: If on-cycle: one observation. If off-cycle: Zero observations. If rated less than effective: 2 Probationary teachers: 0-4 semesters: two observations. 5-6 semesters: One observation All teachers: For SY 2021-22, classroom observations are "highly encouraged" but not required, due to the pandemic. Artifacts of Instructional Practice may continue to be used in lieu of observations this year.
IL Non-probationary teachers: Tenured teachers who receive a rating of needs improvement or unsatisfactory: 3x/academic year (2 must be formal) All other tenured teachers 2x/ observation cycle (1 formal). Probationary teachers: 3x/academic year (2 must be formal)
KS Non-probationary teachers: Year 5+: 1x/3 years Probationary teachers: Years 1&2: 2x/year Years 3&4: 1x/year
KY Non-probationary teachers: At least 1x every 3yrs
ME "Must occur throughout the year"
MD Non-probationary: In the first year of the cycle, both professional practice and student growth are evaluated. If highly effective or effective, then the second- and third-year evaluations use the professional practice rating from the previous year, and student growth is based on the most recent data. A teacher may request a new review of professional practice along with student growth.
MI For teachers who have received ratings of effective or highly effective on their two most recent year-end evaluations; all others are observed 2x/academic year.
NE Only probationary teachers are required to "be evaluated at least once each semester."
NV Non-probationary teachers: One evaluation every other year based on one observation if rated highly effective for two consecutive years. One evaluation per year based on one observation if rated effective. One evaluation per year based on three observations if rated developing or ineffective. Probationary teachers: in their first year of teaching, one evaluation per year based on three observations. If the previous rating was effective or highly effective, one evaluation per year based on two observations. If previous two consecutive ratings were effective or highly effective, one evaluation per year based on one observation.
NJ Teachers rated ineffective or partially effective are placed on a Corrective Action Plan (CAP), requiring one additional observation.
NM Three formal observations and one walkthrough per academic year Additionally guidance for the 2021-2022 school year indicates the following observation schedule: Level I teachers--2 observations ( one in fall, one in spring) Level II and III teachers--1 observation (either fall or spring).
OH Accomplished/Skilled teachers: two formal observations plus two walkthroughs during evaluation year, at least one formal evaluation during off years All other teachers two formal observations plus two walkthroughs each academic year.
OR Only probationary teachers are required to have at least two observations per academic year.
SC Continuing contract teachers-Summative Evaluation: Two observations per semester. Continuing contract teachers-Comprehensive Evaluation: at least one observation the first semester. Annual or Continuing contract teachers-Goals Based Evaluation: Observations are encouraged but not required. Observations are not required for annual contract teachers that opt for a Goals Based Evaluation.
TN Professional License: Rated level 1-Three formal observations Levels 2-4-Two formal observations Level 5-One formal observation, 2 walk-throughs Probationary teachers: Those scoring 5 on the overall evaluation or growth score must be observed once during the first semester, with two walkthroughs during the second semester.
UT State requires "multiple supervisor observations at appropriate intervals," but does not specify an exact number.
VT State's Guidelines for Teacher and Leader Effectiveness are recommendations, not requirements.
WV Non-probationary teachers: Teachers in Intermediate Progression: 2x/ academic year Teachers in Advanced Progression: may request an observation(s). Probationary teachers: Teachers within their first three years of teaching are designated as in Initial Progression for purposes of the evaluation system.
WI Wisconsin does not have a tenure policy and does not define probationary teachers, the state does distinguish evaluation frequency based on years of experience. Teachers with more than one year of experience follow the observation schedule below: Summary Year: 1 announced observation or 3-4 unannounced "mini" observations. If a teacher opts for 3-4 mini observations in lieu of 1 formal observation then they must have a total of 5-6 mini observations. Supporting year: 1 unannounced observation. Teachers in their first year of teaching must have an evaluation with at least one announced observation and 3-4 unannounced observations

Do states require districts to observe new teachers early in the school year?

2022
2019
Add previous year
Figure details

Yes: CT, DE, HI, ID, KS, MA, MN, NE, NV, NJ, NC, OK, SC, TN, VA, WA, WV

No: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, DC, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MI, MS, MO, MT, NH, NM, NY, ND, OH, OR, PA, RI, SD, TX, UT, VT, WI, WY

Footnotes
DE New system (DTGSS) will be fully operational in SY 2022-23.
HI For SY 2021-22, classroom observations were "highly encouraged" but not required, due to the pandemic. Artifacts of Instructional Practice may continue to be used in lieu of observations SY 2021-2022.
MI The performance evaluation system must include a mid year progress report for a teacher who is in the first year of the probationary period.
NM Guidance for the 2021-2022 school year indicates the following observation schedule: Level I teachers--2 observations ( one in fall, one in spring) Level II and III teachers--1 observation (either fall or spring)
TN Those scoring 5 on the overall evaluation or growth score must be observed once during the first semester, with two walkthroughs during the second semester.
VT State's Guidelines for Teacher and Leader Effectiveness are recommendations, not requirements.

Do states require probationary status or years of experience to dictate how many times a teacher will be observed?

2022
2019
Add previous year
Figure details

Yes: AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, CT, HI, IL, KS, KY, MD, MN, NE, NV, NJ, NC, OK, OR, SC, TN, VA, WA, WV, WI

No: AZ, DE, DC, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, LA, ME, MA, MI, MS, MO, MT, NH, NM, NY, ND, OH, PA, RI, SD, TX, UT, VT, WY

Footnotes
AL Non-probationary teachers: 2x/observation cycle
AZ Non-probationary teachers: Second classroom observation may be waived for a continuing teacher whose teaching performance based on the first classroom observation places the teacher in one of the two highest performance classifications for the current school year, unless the teacher requests a second observation.
AR Novice teachers are exempt from evaluations. Non-probationary teachers: Observations are required as part of summative evaluations; however, summative evaluations must only occur 1x/4 years.
CT Non-probationary teachers: First- and second-year teachers & those with below standard or developing ratings: 3 formal observations Those with proficient or exemplary ratings: 3 formal observations/reviews of practice, one of which must be a formal observation. Those with proficient or exemplary ratings who are not first-or second-year teachers: 1 formal in-class observation no less frequently than once every 3 years, and 3 informal in-class observations in all other years
DE New system (DTGSS) will be fully operational in SY 2022-23.
FL Probationary teachers: First year of teaching: 2x
GA Non-probationary teachers: 6 (4 walkthroughs & 2 formative) OR 2 for those rated proficient or exemplary for the previous year. Probationary teachers: 4 walkthroughs & 2 formative
HI Non-probationary teachers: If on-cycle: 1 If off-cycle: 0 If rated less than effective: 2 For SY 2021-22, classroom observations are "highly encouraged" but not required, due to the pandemic. Artifacts of Instructional Practice may continue to be used in lieu of observations this year. Probationary teachers: 0-4 semesters: 2 5-6 semesters: 1 For SY 2021-22, classroom observations are "highly encouraged" but not required, due to the pandemic. Artifacts of Instructional Practice may continue to be used in lieu of observations this year.
IL Non-probationary teachers: Tenured teachers who receive a rating of needs improvement or unsatisfactory: 3x/academic year (2 must be formal) All other tenured teachers 2x/ observation cycle (1 formal) Probationary teachers: 3x/academic year (2 must be formal)
KS Non-probationary teachers: Year 5+: 1x/3 years Probationary teachers: Years 1&2: 2x/year Years 3&4: 1x/year
KY Non-probationary teachers: At least 1x every 3yrs
ME "Must occur throughout the year"
MD Non-probationary teachers: In the first year of the cycle, both professional practice and student growth are evaluated. If highly effective or effective, then the second- and third-year evaluations use the professional practice rating from the previous year, and student growth is based on the most recent data. A teacher may request a new review of professional practice along with student growth.
MI For teachers who have received ratings of effective or highly effective on their two most recent year-end evaluations; all others are observed 2x/academic year.
NE Only probationary teachers are required to "be evaluated at least once each semester."
NV Non-probationary teachers: One evaluation every other year based on one observation if rated highly effective for two consecutive years. One evaluation per year based on one observation if rated effective. One evaluation per year based on three observations if rated developing or ineffective. Probationary teachers: in their first year of teaching, one evaluation per year based on three observations. If the previous rating was effective or highly effective, one evaluation per year based on 2 observations. If previous two consecutive ratings were effective or highly effective, one evaluation per year based on 1 observation.
NJ Teachers rated ineffective or partially effective are placed on a Corrective Action Plan (CAP), requiring one additional observation.
NM State policy indicates, the following schedule: 3 formal observations and 1 walkthrough per academic year Additionally guidance for the 2021-2022 school year indicates the following observation schedule: Level I teachers--2 observations ( one in fall, one in spring) Level II and III teachers--1 observation (either fall or spring)
OH Accomplished/Skilled teachers: two formal observations plus two walkthroughs during evaluation year, at least one formal evaluation during off years All other teachers two formal observations plus two walkthroughs each academic year.
OR Only probationary teachers are required to have at least two observations per academic year.
SC Continuing contract teachers-Summative Evaluation: Two observations per semester. Continuing contract teachers-Comprehensive Evaluation: at least one observation the first semester. Annual or Continuing contract teachers-Goals Based Evaluation: Observations are encouraged but not required.
TN Professional License: Rated level 1-Three formal observations Levels 2-4-Two formal observations Level 5-One formal observation, 2 walk-throughs. New/Probationary teachers: Those scoring 5 on the overall evaluation or growth score must be observed once during the first semester, with two walkthroughs during the second semester.
UT State requires "multiple supervisor observations at appropriate intervals," but does not specify an exact number.
VT State's Guidelines for Teacher and Leader Effectiveness are recommendations, not requirements.
WV Teachers in Intermediate Progression (within first three years of teaching): 2x/ academic year Teachers in Advanced Progression: may request an observation(s).
WI Although Wisconsin does not have a tenure policy and does not define probationary teachers, the state does distinguish evaluation frequency based on years of experience. Teachers with more than one year of experience follow the observation schedule below: Summary Year: 1 announced observation or 3-4 unannounced "mini" observations. If a teacher opts for 3-4 mini observations in lieu of 1 formal observation then they must have a total of 5-6 mini observations. Supporting year: 1 unannounced observation.

Updated: November 2022

Research rationale

Observations serve several purposes, including to provide actionable feedback to teachers and to provide a summative rating that can be used in staffing decisions. Observations can be a rich source of information for teachers, giving them useful feedback to improve their practice.

Multiple data sources should be used in teacher evaluation, including multiple observations by more than one observer.[1] Teacher observations conducted by principals that occur once or twice a year and consist of rating teachers on observable behaviors and characteristics have not proved valid.[2] Research widely finds that the nature of their role as both instructional leaders and summative judges inhibits principals' ability to reliably serve as evaluators.[3] In contrast, observations conducted by peers and other observers with subject knowledge are valid and reliable.[4] Additionally, teacher observations are more effective when they occur in tandem with aligned professional development.[5]

Observations are especially important for new teachers. In the absence of good metrics for determining who will be an effective teacher before he or she begins to teach,[6] it is critical that schools and districts closely monitor the performance of new teachers.[7] States should specifically require that new teachers receive an observation early in the school year. Early feedback may be especially essential for new teachers, given that teachers' performance in their first year is a strong predictor of their performance in later years.[8]

Student reports of teacher quality are a unique and largely untapped source of rich data.[9] Research finds that student input on teacher quality adds value to teacher evaluation systems. Research also finds teachers prefer evaluation systems that include student survey data.[10] Students' first-hand reports of classroom elements (e.g., textbooks, homework, instruction), teacher-student communication, assignments, and daily classroom operations may provide teachers with credible information about their impact in the classroom, as well as serve as a tool for formative evaluation.[11] Student perceptions of learning environments can be reliable and predictive of learning.[12] Including student surveys in teacher evaluation systems strengthens the ability to identify teachers' effects on outcomes beyond standardized test scores.[13] In addition, teacher evaluation systems that include student survey data, which are somewhat correlated with teachers' student growth measures,[14] are stronger, more reliable, and more valid than those that rely solely on administrator reports and observations.[15]


[1] Glass, G. V. (1974). A review of three methods determining teacher effectiveness. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Evaluating educational performance (pp. 11-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.; Travers, R. M. W. (1981). Criteria of good teaching. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 14-22). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.; Xu, S. & Sinclair, R. L. (2002). Improving teacher evaluation for increasing student learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, New Orleans, LA.
[2] Peterson, K. D. (2004). Research on school teacher evaluation. NASSP Bulletin, 88(639), 60-79.; The New Teacher Project. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED515656.pdf&sa=D&ust=1508185360843000&usg=AFQjCNG_FOzv9usICvWem-xNf0Ny71KcMg; Ellet, C. D. & Teddlie, C. (2003). Teacher evaluation, teacher effectiveness, and school effectiveness: Perspectives from the USA. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(1), 101-128.; Good, T. L., & Mulryan, C. (1990). Teacher ratings: A call for teacher control and self-evaluation. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.) The new teacher handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.; Darling-Hammond, L. (1986). A proposal for evaluation in the teaching profession. The Elementary School Journal, 86(4), 530-551.; Hazi, H. M., & Arredondo Rucinski, D. (2009). Teacher evaluation as a policy target for improved learning: A fifty-state review of statute and regulatory action since NCLB. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(5).; Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subject performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26(1), 101-136.; Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.; Stiggins, R. J., & Bridgeford, N. J. (1985). Performance assessment for teacher development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(1), 85-97.
[3] Jordan School District (1995). Jordan Performance Appraisal System. Sandy, UT: Jordan School District, Utah.; Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.; Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.; Popham, W. J. (1988). The dysfunctional marriage of formative and summative teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1(3), 269-273.; Hunter, M. (1988). Effecting a reconciliation between supervision and evaluation: A reply to Popham. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1(3), 275-79.; Ellett, C .D. (1987). Emerging teacher performance assessment practices: Implications for the instructional supervision role of school principals. In W. Greenfeld (Ed.), Instructional leadership: Concepts, issues, and controversies (pp. 302-327). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.; Scriven, M. (1988). Duty-based teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1(4), 319-334.; Stronge, J. H., Helm, V. M., & Tucker, P. D. (1995). Evaluation handbook for professional support personnel. Michigan: CREATE, The Evaluation Center, 1-91.; Cook, M. A., & Richards, H. C. (1972). Dimensions of principal and supervisor ratings of teacher behavior. Journal of Experimental Education, 41(2), 11-14.
[4] Peterson, K. (2004). Research on school teacher evaluation. NASSP Bulletin, 88(639), 60-79.; Hill, H., & Grossman, P. (2013). Learning from teacher observations: Challenges and opportunities posed by new teacher evaluation systems. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 371-384.
[5] Shaha, S. H., Glassett, K. F., & Copas, A. (2015). The impact of teacher observations with coordinated professional development on student performance: A 27-state program evaluation. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 12(1), 55.
[6] For review on limited data on new teachers, see: Chingos, M. M., & Peterson, P. E. (2011). It's easier to pick a good teacher than to train one: Familiar and new results on the correlates of teacher effectiveness. Economics of Education Review, 30(3), 449-465.
[7] Staiger, D. O., & Rockoff, J. E. (2010). Searching for effective teachers with imperfect information. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 97-117.
[8] Atteberry, A., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2015). Do first impressions matter? Predicting early career teacher effectiveness. AERA Open, 1(4), 1-23.
[9] Aleamoni, L. M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13, 153-166.; Peterson, K.D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
[10] Peterson, K.D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.; Peterson, K. D., Wahlquist, C., & Bone, K. (2000). Student surveys for school teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(2), 135-153.; Peterson, K. D. (2004). Research on school teacher evaluation. NASSP Bulletin, 88(639), 60-79.; Stronge, J., & Ostrander, L. (1997). Client surveys in teacher evaluation. In J. H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice (pp. 129-161). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
[11] Peterson, K.D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.; Aleamoni, L. M. (1981). Student ratings of instruction. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 110-145). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.; Aleamoni, L. M. (1987). Student rating myths versus research facts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 111-119.; Aleamoni, L. M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13, 153-166.; McGreal, T. L. (1983). Successful teacher evaluation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.; Peterson, K. D., Stevens, D., & Driscoll, A. (1990). Primary grade student reports for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4, 165-173.; Wallace, T. L., Kelcey, B., & Ruzek, E. (2016). What can student perception surveys tell us about teaching? Empirically testing the underlying structure of the Tripod student perception survey. American Educational Research Journal, 53(6), 1834-1868.
[12] Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & B├╝ttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1-9.; Wagner, W., Gollner, R., Helmke, A., Trautwein, U., & Ludtke, O. (2013). Construct validity of student perceptions of instructional quality is high, but not perfect: Dimensionality and generalizability of domain-independent assessments. Learning and Instruction, 28, 1-11.; Kane, T. J., & Cantrell, S. (2010). Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the measures of effective teaching project. Seattle, WA: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
[13] Kane, T. J., McCaffrey, D. F., Miller, T., & Staiger, D. O. (2013). Have we identified effective teachers? Validating measures of effective teaching using random assignment. MET Project. Seattle, WA: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
[14] Wallace, T. L., Kelcey, B., & Ruzek, E. (2016). What can student perception surveys tell us about teaching? Empirically testing the underlying structure of the Tripod student perception survey. American Educational Research Journal, 53(6), 1834-1868.
[15] Peterson, K. D., & Stevens, D. (1988). Student reports for school teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 259-267.; Stronge, J., & Ostrander, L. (1997). Client surveys in teacher evaluation. In J. H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice (pp. 129-161). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.