The Investigators hypothesized cooperating teachers' evaluations of candidates in clinical practice and field experiences would possess higher scores than those provided by clinical and education division faculty. However, the reasons for the higher scores proved to be much more complex than originally thought. While it was assumed that teachers needed formal training to fulfill their roles as effective student teacher supervisors, additional attributes needed to be addressed. Cooperating teachers exercised power over their student teachers and field experience students through their evaluations, rewards, distribution of knowledge, vested authority, and charisma. Effective cooperating teachers collaborated rather than dictated, relinquished an appropriate level of control, allowed for personal relationships, shared constructive feedback, and accepted differences. As mentors, cooperating teachers needed to not only help students become effective practitioners they also needed to help them develop as professionals in the field. Recommendations are shared regarding how to remedy the many reasons for inflation of assessment results by cooperating teachers.