Abstract
Purpose. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which K–6 California principals use additional evaluation criteria in the teacher performance evaluation process for special education teachers compared to regular education teachers. A secondary purpose was to determine the extent to which K–6 California principals use the expanded roles and responsibilities outlined in the 1997 IDEA Amendment as part of the evaluation criteria for special education teacher performance evaluation. Methodology. This was a descriptive and ex post facto study. The sample population for this study was randomly drawn from a pool of 2,119 K–6 California principals. The principals were sent a questionnaire designed by the researcher. Findings. This study found the majority of principals "sometimes" to "always" used seven additional evaluation criteria that included the expanded roles and responsibilities of the special education teachers, when they evaluated special education teachers. The seven criteria were: communication/collaboration; student assessment; IEP process; behavioral support plan; modified instruction; goal/benchmark development; and higher student expectation. No significant differences were found in principals using additional evaluation criteria in the teacher performance evaluation process for special education teachers based on: school size, number of teachers supervised, experience of the evaluator, and district special education support. There was a significant difference in the extent to which principals use additional evaluation criteria in the teacher performance evaluation process for special education teachers and the number of IDEA 97 training hours the evaluator received. Evaluators who received 6–12 hours used more additional evaluation criteria than those who received 0–5 and 13 or more hours of training. Conclusions and recommendations. Over the last twenty years, school districts have experienced numerous lawsuits and due process hearings because of special education procedural violations (Maloney 1994). Since the special education teacher is the person responsible for carrying out the special education mandates, school districts would benefit from including in their performance evaluation the required mandates for the special education teacher. If these elements were included in an evaluation instrument, the state of California could increase compliance with federal special education mandates.