Described is a rationale and process that can be used for the evaluation of environmental education programs. Expectations, planning, results, and using results are all discussed as steps in the evaluation process. (CW)

Describes experiences with student evaluation of teacher performance in higher education at four universities. Recommends peer evaluation through a system of rotating seminars in which faculty members demonstrate teaching by discussing their professional activities. (CFR)

Asserts that the presumption that student evaluation of teacher performance will eliminate poor or below-average teachers is dubious. Maintains that student evaluation is less harmful than peer evaluation. Argues that student evaluation is one of several factors that contribute to the decline of U.S. universities. (CFR)

Contends that student evaluation of teacher performance has lowered the quality of U.S. education. Argues that the assessment instruments used to assess teacher performance are not only limited in effectiveness but are used as an instrument of intimidation to force conformity to politically correct standards. (CFR)

Asserts that standardized teacher evaluation forms belittle students by blending them into an anonymous mass and emphasize that writing is unimportant. Concludes that, rather than increasing students' influence, teacher evaluations enhance administrators' power and pose a danger to intellectual freedom. (CFR)

Maintains that the standardized teacher/course evaluation form has become a ritual at virtually every major U.S. university. Argues that many good teachers are unrewarded, ineffective ones win prizes, and the evaluation process is a means of monitoring political orthodoxy. (CFR)