The purpose of this study was to identify which plans for evaluation and supervision are most satisfactory to teachers. The study's participants come from three school systems in northwest Georgia. Each school district uses a different plan for evaluation and supervision; each claiming that the end goal is to improve teacher performance. Prior research has shown that teacher satisfaction increases teacher performance, which in turn, increases student achievement. Each plan includes elements of both formative and summative evaluation. Because each of the plans was neither completely formative, used to improve teacher performance, nor summative, used to evaluate teachers, the term plan for evaluation and supervision was developed to encompass the dual roles of each district's plan. The study examines relationships between teachers' perceptions of five processes of evaluation: role of supervisor, formative/summative purposes of supervision, clarity of communication, time evaluated, and teacher participation in the plan. In addition, the study examines the relationship between years of teaching experience in the district and the plan for evaluation and supervision, as well as the relationship between evaluation time and plan for evaluation and supervision. The study procedures included identification of districts with differing plans for evaluation and supervision. Once districts were identified, elementary teachers were surveyed. Two survey instruments were combined for use in this study: the first from Ebemeier (2003) and the second from Dollansky (1998). The survey includes questions from a variety of literature on teacher satisfaction. The survey had 229 teacher respondents from the three districts. Analysis of variance and chi square were used to analyze survey responses after preliminary analyses. The three districts each align with research in the literature. District A aligns with collaborative supervision, District B with directive supervision, and District C with non-directive supervision. Overall, the teachers from District B were the least satisfied. Neither the amount of time teachers were evaluated nor the years of teaching experience were significant factors in the analyses. The findings suggest that districts should develop plans for evaluation and supervision that incorporate collaborative and non-directive elements.