Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
FROM the number of papers published during the last three years, it appears that interest in the measurement and prediction of teacher efficiency has continued and possibly has increased. Besides the many research studies reported in the literature, there are many critical papers assessing what has been done and suggesting new approaches. Levin (56), for example, found three sources of inconclusiveness in research on teacher competence: (a) poor questions, that is, questions that cannot be answered; (b) indefinite meanings for competence; and (c) lack of a conceptual framework or theory guiding the research. He stated that facts must not be summed up indiscriminately, that the criteria should be narrowed, and that relationships should be sought for each criterion independently. Orleans and others (63) proposed that we start with pupil growth and increase the accuracy of our measurement there by controlling variables other than teacher performance which may affect pupil growth, thus isolating the influence of a particular teacher and the influence of particular behaviors. Teachers and pupils might then be classified and goals defined. Papers by Crow (26), Gage and Orleans (38), and Rabinowitz and Travers (66) reviewed problems in the field of teacher evaluation and suggested guiding principles.
Barr et al. (Sun,) studied this question.