Education Drivers

Principal Evaluation

The field of principal evaluation, while gaining increased research interest in recent years, lags behind teacher evaluation in terms of conclusions that can be made regarding effective practice. Prior to Race to the Top and ESEA waivers, principal evaluation was implemented inconsistently and evaluation systems lacked instruments with validity and/or reliability, had a tenuous relationship with leadership standards, failed to include measures of student/school outcomes, and had mixed purposes as to their intended use (e.g., sometimes as formative information to help principals improve, while other times as summative information to make personnel decisions). However, today’s evaluation systems have evolved to incorporate multiple measures of principal performance that evaluate principals on research-based principles of effective leadership, often include student outcomes (which is often controversial, however), and are used both to help principals improve and to hold them accountable for their performance. Ongoing and more frequent observations, often conducted by the principal supervisor, who often also serves as a coach/mentor and directs the principal towards needed professional learning, show promise as an effective practice. Using the results from principal evaluations for personnel decisions, such as offering incentives through pay-for-performance programs, yields mixed results and warrants further research attention. 

Principal Evaluation

Principal Evaluation PDF

Donley, J., Detrich, R., States, J., & Keyworth, (2021). Principal Evaluation Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. https://www.winginstitute.org/quality-leadership-principal-evaluation

           Principals influence student learning and achievement in strong but indirect ways, making them key contributors to school improvement efforts (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Leithwood et al., 2010, 2020; Robinson et al., 2008; Supovitz et al., 2010; Viano et al., 2021). In fact, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires that every school be staffed with an effective leader (Fuller et al., 2017). Principals’ roles have become increasingly complex as they face heightened accountability pressures to improve student outcomes (Fuller & Hollingworth, 2014; Goldring et al., 2009) and the expectation to provide instructional leadership and leadership for equity rather than simply managerial competence (Davis et al., 2005; Grissom et al., 2021). Ensuring effective school leadership requires best practice in each phase of the principal development pipeline, from recruiting the right candidates to evaluating their performance and providing targeted and ongoing support throughout their careers.

           Fitzpatrick et al (2011) noted that the fundamental purpose of evaluation is “the identification, clarification, and application of defensible criteria to determine an evaluation object’s value (worth or merit) in relation to those criteria” (p. 7). The purpose of principal evaluation is to use these criteria to assess a principal’s worth or merit (Fuller et al., 2015). Current practices grew out of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers, Race to the Top (RTTT) funding, and the recent reauthorization of ESEA as ESSA, focusing on providing policies aimed at improving principals’ skills (Donaldson et al., 2020; Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs et al., 2021; Fuller & Hollingworth, 2015; Grissom et al., 2021).

            Emphasizing principal evaluation is based on the theory of action that evaluation can be used for both summative and formative purposes to improve performance by increasing accountability and providing support through enhanced feedback and coaching, and targeted professional development opportunities (Donaldson et al., 2020). Recent principal evaluation systems strive both to evaluate principal performance and build leadership capacity (Anderson & Turnbull, 2016). However, while the teacher evaluation research base has increased substantially over the past two decades, principal evaluation has attracted much less attention in the research community (Anderson & Turnbull, 2016; Clifford & Ross, 2012; Davis et al., 2011; Donaldson et al., 2020; Goldring et al., 2009).

            This review briefly describes the evolution of principal evaluation policies in the United States, discusses current commonly used evaluation systems in terms of purpose, components, processes, and consequences, and considers evidence-based strategies, best practice, and recommendations.

Principal Evaluation and Evolving Policy and Practice in the United States

           Those designing and developing principal evaluation systems must address what to assess and how best to assess it (Donaldson, Mavrogordata, Dougherty, et al., 2021; Goldring et al., 2009). The what question involves identifying the standards and practices that constitute effective leadership, while the how question involves creating valid and reliable instruments and processes for comparing what principals do against standards (Grissom et al., 2018).

            Historically, principal evaluation systems have not been designed to pay serious attention to either of these questions (Grissom et al., 2018). Prior to 2009 and the advent of RTTT and ESEA waivers, principal evaluation systems varied widely at both state and district levels, and most frequently lacked a research-based foundation for their implementation (Davis et al., 2011; Ginsberg & Berry, 1990; Ginsberg & Thompson, 1992). Commonly used types of evaluation were a simple checklist on which a supervisor rated the principal’s behaviors or traits in areas such as loyalty or time management, and a narrative, open-ended evaluation of performance (Lashway, 2003; Reeves, 2005). Very few principals found these evaluations useful or relevant in improving their job performance, and most did not receive actionable feedback from supervisors about specific behaviors that should be modified for improvement (Reeves, 2005). Additional research demonstrated that principals often felt that evaluations were subjective and political, were carried out inconsistently, and failed to account for contextual differences between schools (Davis & Hensley, 1999).

            Most evaluation approaches were not connected to student outcomes, and “a principal could have the appropriate knowledge and skills or exhibit the ‘correct’ behaviors and be evaluated as effective regardless of school outcomes” (Fuller et al., 2015, p. 166). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ushered in increased adoption of high-stakes testing, and a number of states began requiring the inclusion of outcome measures of achievement, attendance, and graduation in principal evaluation (Clifford & Ross, 2012).

            However, researchers questioned the validity of linking these outcomes to principal behaviors and competencies through the evaluation process (Goldring et al., 2009). Goldring and colleagues analyzed the content and usage of 65 district- and state-level principal evaluation systems across 40 states using a learning-centered leadership framework (Murphy et al., 2006) to determine the congruence between research-based effective leadership criteria and these instruments and evaluation practice. The learning-centered leadership framework includes leadership behaviors and school conditions that have been shown to lead to improvements in school performance; evaluation measures the extent to which the principal acts to ensure that these conditions are in place (e.g., quality instruction and rigorous curriculum) (Murphy et al., 2006). Goldring et al. (2009) found that principal evaluation systems often included instruments that lacked evidence of validity and/or psychometric properties (e.g., reliability) and were not linked to leadership standards; these systems most often failed to evaluate principals on key research-based leadership behaviors linked to student achievement, such as ensuring a rigorous curriculum and high-quality instruction.

          Several comprehensive reviews of the literature over this period concluded that most evaluation systems (1) lacked reliability and validity and were frequently applied unevenly; (2) were only loosely linked to professional leadership standards; (3) lacked an evidence base of whether and how they improved practice; and (4) were developed around various performance criteria rather than school or student outcomes and often had mixed purposes, such as accountability versus improved practice (Clifton & Ross, 2012; Davis et al., 2011; Portin et al., 2006).

          Several studies conducted over this period, however, also demonstrated that evaluation systems based on leadership standards and an emphasis on instructional leadership had the potential to produce more positive outcomes than those lacking this foundation. Kimball et al. (2009) randomly assigned principals in a large western U.S. school system to be evaluated using either a new standards-based system or the traditional system. They found through surveys and interviews that principals in the new system were more likely than their colleagues to report clarity about evaluation expectations, useful feedback and support for improvement, and satisfaction with their evaluation; however, they also reported conflicts with competing messages from other sources defining performance expectations in alternative ways. Sun and Youngs (2009) analyzed principal evaluation purposes, focus, and assessed leadership activities in districts in Michigan and their relationship to principal behaviors characteristic of learning-centered leadership (Murphy et al., 2006. When evaluation systems included purposes (e.g., principal professional learning) and practices (e.g., a focus on school goal setting, teacher professional learning, and close monitoring of student learning) consistent with instructional and learning-centered leadership, principals were more likely to engage in leadership behaviors that have been shown to support student learning (Sun & Youngs, 2009).

          Grissom et al. (2018) noted that “growing national attention to the importance of school leadership, coupled with a new focus on increasing the rigor of teacher evaluation as a means of improving teacher effectiveness, has led to widespread reform of principal evaluation in recent years” (p. 449). More recent evaluation systems in use since RTTT and ESEA waivers have addressed some of the weaknesses cited in previous research, and states’ evaluation of principals has changed dramatically over the past decade (Fuller et al., 2015). RTTT and ESEA waivers have sought to more closely link the work of principals to the improvement of student learning, and encouraged the use of systems that measured performance in accordance with on evidence-based school leadership behaviors and student achievement (Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs, et al., 2021). Both policies require that principals be evaluated using multiple measures and incorporate student achievement/academic growth measures (U.S. Department of Education, 2009, 2011); however, most of the details, such as how much weight is given to academic performance scores in the final summative rating, are left up to states to determine (Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs, et al., 2021).

          Many of the recent state systems focus on enhancing principals’ instructional leadership and are based on the assumption that evaluation can improve performance by instilling accountability and enhancing feedback and coaching for principals (Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Dougherty, et al., 2020; 2021). Fuller and colleagues (2015) studied principal evaluation policies in all 50 states and reported that the primary purpose of these policies in more than three quarters of states was to support professional growth. In addition, policies in more than two thirds of states linked evaluation results to principal compensation, promotion, or dismissal. Most states incorporated student academic performance and approximately one quarter also included measures of teacher quality and/or retention, school climate, and teacher working conditions. Overall, states had adopted more diverse measures of principal performance that were more closely tied to student and teacher outcomes (Fuller et al., 2015).

Current Principal Evaluation Systems and Research on Best Practice

          Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Dougherty, et al. (2021) conducted a more recent state policy scan of principal evaluation in the United States, and summarized policies in place across all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Results from this study are discussed in the sections below related to the purposes, components, processes, and consequences of principal evaluation.

Purposes of Evaluation

          Research suggests a shift in current practice from evaluation as strictly a compliance activity conducted infrequently and with little attention to the purposes of the evaluation, to how information produced by the evaluation process can be used constructively. Burkhauser et al. (2013) defined common purposes of principal evaluation systems as “clarifying expectations for practices in which principals should engage; providing formative feedback to help principals improve their practice; promoting state or district goals (particularly around improvement of teaching); [and] supporting decisions about hiring, placement, dismissal, and compensation” (p. 3).

            Evaluation purposes then guide selection of multiple evaluation measures, and system designers must consider how to combine data from these measures into overall evaluation scores. When evaluation systems are intended to produce summative scores to hold principals accountable for performance, high levels of validity and reliability are particularly important; if the purpose is only to provide formative feedback for improvement, these issues are less of a concern (Burkhauser et al., 2013). For either type of data to have its intended impact, principals must perceive evaluation systems to be reasonable, fair and accurate (Fitzpatrick et al., 2011; Grissom et al., 2015). Otherwise, principals may ignore or subvert the evaluation information, or in some cases attempt to “game the system” by manipulating data collected to avoid negative evaluation consequences or to gain rewards (Kane & Staiger, 2002).

          States have, in essence, turned to a two-pronged approach that emphasizes results-based accountability and principal development as purposes for the evaluation (Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs, et al., 2021; Scott, 2013). The notion of principal accountability has shifted generally from an assessment of how well principals run their school buildings and how much they are liked by teachers, toward holding principals responsible for demonstrating leadership standards of practice and attaining student outcome benchmarks (Donaldson et al., 2020). Most states have delegated authority for principal evaluation to the district level, and most (84%) allow districts to create their own systems provided they are consistent with state policy requirements (Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs, et al., 2021). In addition, 61% of states require annual evaluations of all principals (both probationary and nonprobationary), and slightly more than half (53%) specify that this evaluation be conducted by the superintendent (or designee) or other district administrators such as supervisors (Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs, et al., 2021). Approximately half of states require some type of principal evaluator training. A lack of principal evaluator training can be particularly problematic when principals are evaluated in high-stakes systems (Goff et al., 2016).

          As noted previously, designers of principal evaluation systems must consider the what in terms of the components that should be measured and how much each component should contribute to summative evaluation scores, and the howin terms of the processes used to capture data (Goldring et al., 2009). Also important are the consequences of the evaluation, which include the next steps for using the information collected for decision making about the principal’s employment status or compensation, as well as professional development to support improvement (Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Dougherty, et al., 2021). Each of these areas and current related research are discussed below.

Evaluation Components

          Table 1 highlights selected results of the Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs, et al. (2021) study in terms of the components of state principal evaluation systems. They showed that almost all states required the inclusion of leadership skills and practices (98%) and student outcomes (90%) components in their evaluation systems; however, only slightly more than half actually specified the weight of each of these components in the principal’s final summative rating. The modal (most frequently occurring) weight for each was 50% (Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs, et al., 2021). For example, in Tennessee’s system of principal evaluation, 50% involved measures of student achievement (35% based on value-added schoolwide measures of academic growth, and 15% based on additional achievement measures agreed upon by principal and evaluator), and 50% consisted of subjective scores assigned by an evaluator (typically a principal supervisor) using a leadership standards-based rubric (Grissom et al., 2018).

Table 1. Components of principal evaluation systems across states and Washington, D.C.

Adapted from Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs, et al. (2021), p. 351. Some percentages add up to more than 100 due to rounding errors or to variables being partly required or partly recommended in some states. Weights for each component are not included in this table.

            Stakeholder surveys of principal performance by teachers, students, parents, and community members were required by just 27% of states, but recommended by more than half (55%); however, few states (8%) included these data independently in the final summative evaluation. The use of stakeholder surveys is thought to contribute to a “360-degree” comprehensive view of principal performance and is increasingly recommended in the literature as a component of evaluation systems (Goldring, Mavrogordato, et al., 2015).

            An example of a 360-degree survey is the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED), a principal evaluation tool focused on instructional leadership and leadership for learning that synthesizes feedback from surveys of principals, principal supervisors, and teachers to provide an overall principal performance score (Murphy et al. 2006; Porter et al., 2010). This standards-based instrument “measures critical leadership behaviors for the purposes of diagnostic analysis, progress monitoring, and summative evaluation” (Goldring, Cravens, et al., 2015, p. 179). VAL-ED has undergone significant research to confirm its psychometric properties (reliability and validity), and has been used extensively as a component of several large-scale initiatives that address principal evaluation (e.g., Goldring et al., 2020). It was used in one study as a component of a comprehensive teacher and principal feedback system that produced significant enhancements in in instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust (Garet et al., 2017).

           Fuller et al. (2015) found that many states used school climate/teacher working conditions surveys in evaluation systems with high-stakes consequences; they urged caution with interpretation and use for high-stakes decision making due to a lack of survey instrument validation and varying response rates across schools. The research by Donaldson, Mavrogordato and Youngs, et al (2021) showed that just 12% of states required or recommended that measures of teacher effectiveness be used to evaluate principals, which represents a decrease from the findings of Fuller et al. (2015) in which 22% of states featured teacher quality, effectiveness, and/or retention.

           These findings are generally consistent with other literature suggesting that districts have adopted new principal evaluation systems that include measures of professional practice and student achievement growth (Anderson & Turnbull, 2016; Fuller et al., 2015). Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs, et al. (2021) noted that changes to the components included in principal evaluation systems showed a promising shift toward more research-based approaches and addressed some of the weaknesses in principal evaluation described previously.

          Newer systems are more likely to be based on standards for effective leadership practice (typically rated by principal evaluators/supervisors using rubrics that address standards-based practices), such as the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL), that link principals’ actions with desired outcomes (Clifford & Ross, 2012; National Policy Board for Education Administration [NPBEA], 2015; Anderson & Turnbull, 2016). PSEL standards “guide professional practice and how practitioners are prepared, hired, developed, supervised and evaluated” (NPBEA, 2015, p. 2). Principal leadership standards, which are critical for principal evaluation and development, have evolved over time to emphasize principals as instructional leaders in their buildings (Canole & Young, 2013; Hackman, 2016). PSEL standards address key leadership areas including: (1) curriculum, instruction, and assessment; (2) equity and cultural responsiveness; and (3) building the professional capacity of school personnel (NBPEA, 2015). Standards-based leadership evaluation is considered to be a more valid assessment of principal effectiveness as it typically incorporates multiple measures to enhance validity, requires evaluator training, and can reduce evaluator subjectivity (Anderson & Turnbull, 2016; Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Dougherty, et al., 2021; Kimball & Milanowski, 2009; Kimball et al., 2009).

          While principal effectiveness has been shown to influence student achievement (Branch et al., 2012; Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Liebowitz & Porter, 2019; Robinson et al., 2008), the legitimacy of and the manner in which to incorporate student outcomes in the form of achievement/growth scores in principal evaluation systems are currently areas of debate, with mixed results from studies (Chiang et al., 2016; Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs, et al., 2021; Grissom et al., 2015; Fuller et al., 2015). Districts vary widely in the way they use student outcomes to evaluate principals (Anderson & Turnbull, 2015; Herman & Ross, 2016). In the early part of the past decade, Tennessee, Florida, and Louisiana enacted legislation that required districts to include student outcomes in principal evaluation systems (Grissom et al., 2015). Many of these systems involved the use of value-added student growth scores to document principal performance; however, researchers have noted the difficulties with their use and interpretation:

          For example, disentangling the impact of the educator from the long-run impact of the school presents particular difficulties for principals because there is only one principal at a time in each school. Moreover, it is difficult to choose how much of the school’s performance should be attributed to the principal or instead to the factors outside of the principal’s control. Should, for example, principals be responsible for the effectiveness of teachers that they did not hire? From the point of view of the school administrator whose compensation level or likelihood of keeping his or her job may depend on the measurement model chosen, thoughtful attention to these details is of paramount importance. (Grissom et al., 2015, p. 4)

          Several studies have suggested that student achievement value-added growth scores may be strongly related to variables outside the principal’s control, such as student demographics (Chiang et al., 2016; Fuller & Hollingworth, 2014; Grissom et al., 2015; Henry & Viano, 2016; Herman & Ross, 2016), suggesting concerns about whether they are valid measures of principal performance. Chiang et al. (2016) researched principals’ effects on student achievement growth using longitudinal data on the math and reading outcomes of fourth- to eighth-grade students in Pennsylvania, and concluded that the school value-added was a very poor predictor of principals’ persistent level of effectiveness. Herman and Ross (2016) analyzed New Jersey’s principal performance system and concluded that the proportion of principals ranked as highly effective was lower among those who were evaluated using median student growth percentiles compared with peers who were evaluated using other measures such as whether they attained their own professional goals for student achievement.

          In addition, achievement growth measures were associated with student socioeconomic status in a way that suggested they might be biased against principals working in schools with high percentages of students from low-income families. Grissom et al. (2018) studied principal evaluation in Tennessee, finding that schools with larger numbers of low-income students tended to be led by principals with lower performance ratings, and that bias against principals leading high-poverty schools was likely in the evaluation system. In a pilot study of the Framework for Leadership (FFL) evaluation system piloted in Pennsylvania, researchers found that higher FFL scores were associated with greater value-added scores; however, the relationship was observed only for principals at the middle school level and only for math but not reading or writing scores (McCullough et al., 2016).

          These mixed results regarding value-added student achievement scores as a measure of principal performance may be contributing to policy changes. A recent report by the National Center on Teacher Quality ([NCTQ], 2019) found that 34 states had made progress toward more comprehensive principal evaluation by including student growth data over the past decade, but that 10 states had retreated from requiring these data from 2015 to 2019. An additional trend is for states to encourage districts to link summative principal evaluation results with efforts to more closely supervise principals to support their growth. Several studies on newer principal evaluation systems have found that supervisors are engaging principals in continuous improvement cycles through goal setting based on summative evaluation data, and providing mentoring and coaching to support principals as instructional leaders (Anderson & Turnbull, 2016; Kimball et al., 2015). Additional review of effective principal supervisor practice in principal evaluation is provided in the next section.

Evaluation Processes

          Table 2 includes results from recent state policy analysis research by Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs, et al. (2021) on principal evaluation processes in place across the country. These results show that in contrast to the traditional process of implementing at most a single end-of-year evaluation, which principals often did not view as useful for improvement, most states now either require or at least recommend additional evaluation processes supported by research. Of note, almost all states (92%) either recommended or required principals to engage in goal setting/improvement plan development as part of the evaluation system, and 79% recommended or required principal self-assessment. Nearly three quarters of states also required or recommended more frequent principal monitoring by supervisors/evaluators through a midyear evaluation, allowing for formative feedback during the school year to guide principals’ efforts to improve. In addition, two thirds of states required that principals be observed in action, and nearly three quarters required in-person follow-up meetings to discuss evaluation results. Further inspection of the types of in-person meetings revealed that they focused on goal setting (49% required), pre-observation meetings (12% required), post-observation meetings (25% required), midyear meetings (45% required), end-of-year meetings (65% required), and other topics (12% required) (Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs, et al., 2021).

Table 2. Processes of principal evaluation systems across states and Washington, D.C.

 

 

Adapted from Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs, et al. (2021), p.351. Some percentages add up to more than 100 due to rounding errors or to variables being partly required and partly recommended in some states.

            These results show that newer principal evaluation systems not only include multiple types of data on principal performance but also engage principals and supervisors together more actively and frequently in the evaluation process. As noted previously, traditional evaluation systems often included infrequent evaluations and lack of substantive feedback from supervisors to support principals’ growth (Reeves, 2005). Research suggests that more frequent formative feedback provided throughout the year has the potential to improve performance when combined with targeted professional learning such as mentoring or coaching (Burkhauser et al., 2013; Grissom et al., 2018). Experts in the field of school leadership evaluation argue that principal self-assessment and goal setting can support principals’ intrinsic motivation (Locke & Latham, 2002), and research demonstrates that principals believe that goal-setting, self-reflection, and constructive performance feedback are valuable to them professionally (Anderson & Turnbull, 2016; Chacon-Robles, 2018; DeMatthews et al., 2020; Sanders, 2008).

          Several recent comprehensive studies have addressed major principal evaluation reforms. The Principal Pipeline Initiative (PPI), conducted in six urban districts, sought to develop a strong cadre of principals, in part through improvements to principal evaluation that included measures of student achievement growth and principal practice (Anderson & Turnbull, 2016). Novice principals were evaluated using systems that identified strengths and weaknesses linked to tailored support and professional learning; district leaders did not use evaluations to weed out ineffective principals, taking care not to increase already high turnover. The principal evaluator role was redefined to include quality coaching, and PPI principals were provided with additional supports such as university partnerships and formal training targeted to improving weaknesses. Results showed that evaluators focused less on evaluating compliance with district priorities and more on helping the principal become a more effective instructional leader (Anderson & Turnbull, 2016). The researchers also found that principals’ perceptions of their evaluator/supervisor were generally positive and grew more positive across the several years of the study; ratings of mentors and coaches as sources of support were even more positive. Principals also expressed limited satisfaction with the professional learning they received (Anderson & Turnbull, 2016).

          Kimball et al. (2015) investigated another major principal evaluation reform developed through Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) monies in several large districts throughout the country. The new evaluation system established individual professional development plans that included principal self-assessments and a performance dialogue with the principal supervisor who had received intensive training and support to conduct evaluations and provide coaching and mentoring. The evaluation cycle included initial goal setting, feedback and coaching throughout the cycle, planning, and using results to link the principal to professional development. Kimball and colleagues concluded that the new evaluation systems were more complex and demanding than previous approaches, and placed a spotlight on the importance of well-trained supervisors who could implement the new evaluation tools with fidelity. They further noted that large districts were beginning to reduce the supervisor-to-principal ratio, and also documented a shift toward supplementing evaluation with mentoring and coaching by experienced, retired principals or by a superintendent with close relationships to the district’s principals.

          DeMatthews et al. (2020) examined principals’ perceptions of the Texas Principal Evaluation and Support System (T-PESS), which incorporates many of these research-based practices within a cycle of continuous improvement. The aim of their qualitative study was to determine how veteran principals understood and experienced the system, and which features they found most useful to their professional growth and which posed barriers. The T-PESS evaluator uses a standards-based rubric with the principal annually in a seven-part chronological evaluation process (Texas Education Agency, 2019); see Table 3.

Table 3. Texas Principal Evaluation and Support System (T-PESS)

Adapted from DeMatthews et al. (2020).

            Principals reported that self-assessments, goal setting, and ongoing evaluator coaching and relationships were supportive of enhanced leadership capacity. Goal setting also focused on a single goal; principals believed one goal was more doable than multiple goals considering the complexity and ever-changing challenges of a principalship. Each principal reported a trusting relationship with the evaluator, which was important for the problem-solving/coaching aspects of the evaluation system (DeMatthews et al., 2020). However, similar to findings in other research (Goldring, Mavrogordato, et al., 2015; Zepeda et al., 2014), principals also reported that it was difficult for any evaluation to accurately reflect their performance given unique school contexts that included varying levels of teacher capacity, school culture, and community rapport. Principals may experience cognitive dissonance, for example, when their self-assessment of leadership competencies conflicts with multisource feedback from other stakeholders such as teachers (Goldring, Mavrogordato, et al., 2015).

            DeMatthews et al (2020) also noted that “principals felt that the district provided burdensome and useless bureaucratic work and had not sufficiently developed a system of comprehensive leadership development, which meant principals had limited time and were expected to take the primary responsibility in their own professional development while also leading their school” (p. 21). Zepeda et al (2014) investigated a superintendent’s experiences with a high-stakes principal evaluation through case study research, and uncovered tensions, including difficulties understanding discrepancies between actual principal performance (e.g., measured by classroom walk-through observation data collected by the evaluator) and school performance (e.g., student achievement data), considerations of the type of school inherited by the principal (e.g., high vs. low performing) and the length of time in the principalship compared with outcomes (e.g., how long is enough to see positive results). Zepeda and colleagues noted the importance of open communication lines between evaluator and principal to individualize evaluations or, at the very least, to accurately reflect the local school context.

Shifting Role of Principal Supervisor in Principal Evaluation

          Findings from these studies highlight the importance of the principal–evaluator relationship for ensuring that evaluations are fair and accurate, and that they result in performance improvements. The role of the principal supervisor has generally shifted from ensuring administrative compliance with district policies to supporting principals’ growth as instructional leaders (Anderson & Turnbull, 2016; Grissom et al., 2018; Rogers et al., 2019; Rubin et al., 2020). Rogers et al. noted several challenges for supervisors attempting to implement meaningful and valid principal evaluations:

  • Capacity: Many supervisors may lack the knowledge and skills to identify and evaluate principals’ instructional leadership, making it unlikely that they can provide valid and actionable feedback.
  • Data: Supervisors need timely, reliable, and relevant data on school and teacher performance; sophisticated systems to monitor and review ongoing principal progress may not always be available.
  • Time: There must be adequate time to conduct evaluations at regular intervals during the school year, along with accompanying workload structures and logistical supports.

          Standards for principal supervisors, which were developed for the first time in 2015 (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2015), state that “the primary role of the principal supervisor is to support and improve principals’ capacity for instructional leadership…[and] instructional leadership…is the focus of four of the eight standards” (p. 8). Principal supervisors are also expected to “coach and support individual principals and engage in effective professional learning strategies to help principals grow as instructional leaders” (p. 8). Research shows that principals need ongoing, high-quality in-service training and support, such as mentoring and coaching programs, which are critical in developing and keeping effective principals (Coggshall, 2015; Sutcher et al., 2017). This new role also requires an understanding of adult learners and their developmental needs (Mendels, 2017). The standards also state that a principal supervisor must be ready to “shift from being a coach to a supervisor as necessary to push the learning of the principal” (CCSSO, 2015, p. 16). Rogers et al. (2019) noted that this dualistic role of evaluator and coach “may create conflict because it requires supervisors to engage in both the development and judgment of principals, a concern that is sometimes raised in studies of principal support and mentorship” (p. 444).

          The Wallace Foundation recently implemented the Principal Supervisor Initiative (PSI) to redefine the role of the principal supervisor in six urban districts across the country (Goldring et al., 2020). It “aimed to help districts overhaul a position traditionally focused on administration, operations, and compliance to one dedicated to developing and supporting principals to be effective instructional leaders in their schools” (Goldring et al., 2020, p. xv). The initiative also reduced the number of principals overseen by supervisors, trained supervisors to enhance their capacity to support principals, developed succession planning systems to develop and train new supervisors, and strengthened central office structures to support and sustain supervisors’ changing roles (Goldring et al., 2020). Findings included improvements to principals’ perceptions of their work with their supervisor and their supervisor’s effectiveness, and a shift in the way principals exerted instructional leadership. Specifically, supervisors were trained to lead principals toward better practices in observing and assessing classroom instruction, assessing teachers’ professional development needs and implementation of new learning, and providing teacher performance feedback (Goldring et al., 2020).

          These findings are important because principals often lack effective skills in evaluating teachers and providing formative feedback (Grissom et al., 2018), and are often unwilling to assign low ratings to teachers in high-stakes evaluation systems (Grissom & Loeb, 2017). Many principals also struggle to differentiate teacher performance on some job dimensions from performance on others, calling into question the value of evaluation scores for feedback and performance improvement (Grissom & Loeb, 2017; Halverson et al., 2004). 

Evaluation Consequences

          Table 4 depicts results from recent state policy analysis research by Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs, et al. (2021) on the consequences of principal evaluation ratings in place across the country. Most states currently require that districts assign performance ratings to principals based on evaluation results, a clear departure from traditional systems in which evaluations had few negative or positive consequences for school leaders (Reeves, 2005). Ineffective and developing ratings are more likely to result in some type of consequence than effective or exemplary ratings; just 12% of states linked these ratings to positive consequences, such as increased compensation. However, a number of states did not provide information (Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs, et al., 2021).

Table 4. Consequences of principal evaluation system ratings across states and Washington, D.C.

 

 

Adapted from Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Youngs, et al. (2021), p.351.  

          Donaldson and colleagues (2021) noted that consequences for inadequate performance are generally consistent across states and typically include a remediation plan, more frequent monitoring through increased observations and evaluations, intensive intervention and support, and termination for those with persistently ineffective ratings. Earlier data from 2019 showed that approximately half of states had begun requiring districts to develop improvement plans to provide support for struggling principals (NCTQ, 2019). Only a handful of states from the NCTQ study required some type of positive consequence for effective ratings, such as fewer observations/longer evaluation cycles, promotions, and additional monetary compensation or leadership roles. These results are generally consistent with those obtained by Fuller and colleagues (2015), who found in their earlier state policy analysis that at least two thirds (66%) of states either allowed, recommended, or mandated results from evaluations be used to make personnel decisions. However, little research has been conducted on the efficacy of using principal evaluation results to make high-stakes personnel decisions (Donaldson, Mavrogordato, Dougherty, et al., 2021; Fuller et al., 2015).

          The federal Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program was established in 2006 to provide competitive grants to states and districts to enhance educator effectiveness in high-need schools by measuring performance and using the information for decision making about support and compensation; all proposals for funding required incentive plans for principals (Goff et al., 2016). Some evidence about this program comes from research on the Pittsburgh Principal Incentive Program (PPIP), which offered extensive principal leadership development focused on leadership and supervisor feedback/coaching, and provided monetary compensation through permanent salary increases for performance indicative of effective practice, and an annual bonus based primarily on student achievement growth (Hamilton et al., 2012). While participating principals found the program beneficial to their leadership skills, they reported that monetary compensation did not influence their motivation to work harder or change their practices to increase student achievement, and found the idea of “pay for performance” problematic (Hamilton et al., 2012). In addition, they “were much more likely to attribute changes in their leadership behavior to support and feedback than to financial incentives” (Hamilton et al., 2102, p. xv).

          Many districts reward exceptional teacher performance using nonmonetary rewards such as improved working conditions, paid leave, and job expansion; as the “overwhelming majority of principals are former teachers, it is likely that principals also view their profession as a form of stewardship, suggesting that non-monetary rewards could be used to motivate their performance as well” (Goff et al., 2016, p. 132). Another study used random assignment to study the pay-for-performance component of TIF, in terms of implementation and impacts of performance bonuses on educator and student outcomes, creating treatment and control group districts (Chiang et al., 2015). Implementation data showed that just 30% of treatment districts awarded principal pay-for-performance bonuses that met grant requirements by being challenging to earn (as demonstrated by less than 50% of principals receiving a pay-for-performance bonus), substantial (as demonstrated by an average bonus that was at least 5% of average annual salary), and differentiated (as demonstrated by a highest bonus that was at least 3 times the average bonus).

          The TIF program became the Teacher and School Leaders (TSL) Incentive Program with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2015. Two high-quality studies sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences investigated the impact of evaluations that resulted in performance feedback for educators, and the impact of pay-for-performance bonuses based on performance ratings (Garet et al., 2017; Wayne et al., 2018). The performance feedback study (Garet et al., 2017) included principal evaluations that produced ratings and oral feedback on multiple leadership dimensions (e.g., high standards for student learning) and an overall rating. While formal consequences (e.g., employment or tenure decisions) were not linked to performance ratings, feedback was provided to help identify principals in need of improvement and support. The other study, a follow-up to Chiang et al. (2015), again found that most principals continued to receive the performance bonus, suggesting that these bonuses were not challenging to earn (Wayne et al., 2018).

          Communication by districts of the specifics of the pay-for-performance program were often lacking; for example, even at the end of the 4-year program, 20% of principals still were unaware that they were eligible for a performance bonus. Principals in treatment districts, however, were more satisfied than control principals with their opportunities for professional advancement, opportunities to earn extra pay, and recognition of accomplishments (Chiang et al., 2017). Pay-for-performance had no impact on evaluators’ observation ratings of principals. Providing educators with pay-for performance bonuses enhanced student achievement on some but not all measures, and results were mixed regarding educator satisfaction (Chiang et al., 2017). However, any conclusions about how these programs specifically impacted principal performance, retention, and satisfaction were not possible given that the program impact data were combined for teachers and principals.

          Goff et al. (2016) reviewed incentive programs described in 34 TIF grants and noted a number of challenges to linking evaluation processes to performance incentives, including a lack of evidence of validity or reliability of measures used in evaluation systems and how these measures were weighted, and failure to connect incentives for professional development programs with district goals. They suggested the following:

          When creating an incentive program, schools and districts would benefit from clearly articulating the minimum expectations and then structuring incentives to support leadership outcomes beyond this baseline level. Incentive programs should identify key factors along the path to desired outcomes where districts feel performance is lacking. Additionally, incentive supports should be an explicit part of the incentive system: Outcome incentives may help principals identify what needs to change (e.g., student achievement), but it is the incentive supports that can show principals how to change (e.g., improving classroom observations). (p. 146)

Summary and Conclusions

          Principals create school conditions that enable high-quality teaching and learning, and principal evaluation is a critical component of the principal development pipeline. With few exceptions, principal evaluation policies and practices before 2009 across the United States varied considerably and lacked an evidence base, were not reported to be useful for principal improvement, and lacked any connection to student and school outcomes. Federal policy changes and rapidly growing research based on school leadership have led to widespread principal evaluation reform, however. Today’s principal evaluation systems include multiple measures of performance linked to research on effective leadership and student learning outcomes, with the purpose of holding principals accountable as well as supporting and developing them professionally.

          Research on the components of current principal evaluation systems show that almost all states require the incorporation of student outcomes and measures of standards-based leadership, which has shifted in focus toward principals as instructional leaders in their buildings. Student outcomes are typically achievement test score data, and often principals are evaluated based on the value-added achievement growth scores of their students. Many researchers have questioned the validity of this practice in terms of the degree to which principals should be held responsible for these outcomes, and the bias that has been observed in evaluations of principals in high-poverty schools, who are typically rated as lower performing based on these data. Some evidence suggests that states are retreating from requiring this type of data, and several studies have documented a shift toward engaging principals instead to use these summative data in continuous improvement and goal setting cycles. Increasingly, stakeholder surveys are also included or recommended in evaluation systems such as VAL-ED, which includes teacher surveys of principal performance.

          Principal evaluation processes have also shifted toward more frequent progress monitoring through observation, principal self-assessments, midyear in addition to end-of-year evaluations, and more frequent in-person contact with the principal evaluator, who is often the principal supervisor. Rather than a single summative evaluation at the end of the school year, when it is too late to adjust practice, these ongoing formative evaluation practices may better help principals connect to supports and professional development in a timely manner. In particular, on-the-job mentoring and coaching have proven to be effective principal development practices, as demonstrated through programs such as the Principal Pipeline Initiative and the Texas Principal Evaluation and Support System. However, these and other programs that incorporate newer evaluation systems are not without problems, such as tension that may arise when observation data conflict with student achievement measures, and concerns on the part of the principal that evaluations failed to consider individual school contextual factors influencing results.

          These programs generally have resulted in positive principal–supervisor relationships, which are critical in ensuring that principals trust that evaluations are fair and accurate, and that they result in performance improvements. Newer evaluation systems require supervisors to lead principals toward enhancing their capacity as instructional leaders by providing coaching, for example; however, supervisors frequently need additional training as evaluators, and supports in the form of a reduced caseload of principals to supervise. The Principal Supervisor Initiative provided these components, resulting in improved principal perceptions of supervisors’ effectiveness. Supervisors worked with principals to improve their capacity to observe and assess instructional effectiveness and provide constructive feedback to teachers, an important finding given principals’ weaknesses in these skills.

          Finally, newer evaluation systems are more likely than traditional systems to incorporate some form of consequence based on evaluation results. Negative results typically lead to increased monitoring, remediation plans that include additional supports, and dismissal if performance continues to be poor. Some states and federal programs have experimented with incentives, in particular pay-for-performance. Results from studies on grantees using monies from the Teacher Incentive Fund to offer educator incentives are mixed, with many implementation challenges (e.g., poor communication of program requirements and bonuses that were too easy to earn), but some successes in principal satisfaction with opportunities for principal advancement. To be effective, these performance systems must not only provide outcome incentives but also link these incentives to supports that demonstrate to principals how to improve their practice.

Citations

Anderson, L. M., & Turnbull, B. J. (2016). Building a stronger principalship: Volume 4: Evaluating and supporting principals. Policy Studies Associates. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED570471.pdf

Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2012). Estimating the effect of leaders on public sector productivity: The case of school principals. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Burkhauser, S., Gates, S. M., Hamilton, L. S., Li, J. J., & Pierson, A. (2013). Laying the foundation for successful school leadership. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR419/RAND_RR419.pdf

Canole, M., & Young, M. D. (2013). Standards for educational leaders: An analysis. Council of Chief State School Officers. 

Chacon-Robles, B. (2018). Improving instructional leadership: A multi-case study of principal perspectives on formal evaluation (Publication No. 1409). [Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at El Paso]. Open Access Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarworks.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2408&context=open_etd

Chiang, H., Lipscomb, S., & Gill, B. (2016). Is school value added indicative of principal quality? Education Finance and Policy, 11(3), 283–309. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED566133.pdf

Chiang, H., Speroni, C., Herrmann, M., Hallgren, K., Burkander, P., & Wellington, A. (2017). Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Final report on implementation and impacts of pay-for-performance across four years (NCEE 2017-4004). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184004/pdf/20184004.pdf

Chiang, H., Wellington, A., Hallgren, K., Speroni, C., Herrmann, M., Glazerman, S., & Constantine, J. (2015). Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Implementation and impacts of pay-for-performance after two years(NCEE 2015-4020). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154020/pdf/20154020.pdf

Clifford, M., & Ross, S. (2012). Rethinking principal evaluation: A new paradigm informed by research and practice. National Association of Elementary School Principals; National Association of Secondary School Principals. https://www.naesp.org/sites/default/files/PrincipalEvaluationReport.pdf

Coggshall, J. G. (2015). Title II, Part A: Don’t scrap it, don’t dilute it, fix it. Education Policy Center at American Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Title%20II%2C%20Part%20A%20-%20Don%27t%20Scrap%20It%20Don%27t%20Dilute%20It%20Fix%20It.pdf

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) (2015). Model principal supervisor professional standards.https://ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/2015PrincipalSupervisorStandardsFinal1272015.pdf

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/school-leadership-study-developing-successful-principals.pdf

Davis, S. H., & Hensley, P. A. (1999). The politics of principal evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(4), 383-403.

Davis, S. H., Kearney, K., Sanders, N. M., Thomas, C., & Leon, R. (2011). The policies and practices of principal evaluation: A review of the literature. WestEd. https://www2.wested.org/www-static/online_pubs/resource1104.pdf

DeMatthews, D. E., Scheffer, M., & Kotok, S. (2020). Useful or useless? Principal perceptions of the Texas Principal Evaluation and Support System. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 1–26.

Donaldson, M., Mavrogordato, M., Dougherty, S. M., Al Ghanem, R., & Youngs, P. (2021). Principal evaluation under the elementary and secondary Every Student Succeeds act: A comprehensive policy review. Education Finance and Policy, 16(2), 347–361. https://direct.mit.edu/edfp/article/16/2/347/97157/Principal-Evaluation-under-the-Elementary-and

Donaldson, M., Mavrogordato, M., Youngs, P., & Dougherty, S. (2020). Appraising principal evaluation and development: Current research and future directions. In P. Youngs, J. Kim, & M. Mavrogordato (Eds.), Exploring principal development and teacher outcomes: How principals can strengthen instruction, teacher retention, and student achievement (pp. 56–68). Routledge.

Donaldson, M., Mavrogordato, M., Youngs, P., Dougherty, S., & Al Ghanem, R. (2021). Doing the “real” work: How superintendents’ sensemaking shapes principal evaluation policies and practices in school districts. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–16. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2332858420986177

Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Pearson.

Fuller, E. J., & Hollingworth, L. (2014). A bridge too far? Challenges in evaluating prin­cipal effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3), 466–499.

Fuller, E. J., Hollingworth, L., & Liu, J. (2015). Evaluating state principal evaluation plans across the United States. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 10(3), 164–192.

Fuller, E. J., Hollingworth, L., & Pendola, A. (2017). The Every Student Succeeds Act, state efforts to improve access to effective educators, and the importance of school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 727–756. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317199526_The_Every_Student_Succeeds_Act_State_Efforts_to_Improve_Access_to_Effective_Educators_and_the_Importance_of_School_Leadership

Garet, M. S., Wayne, A. J., Brown, S., Rickles, J., Song, M., & Manzeske, D. (2017). The impact of providing performance feedback to teachers and principals (NCEE 2018-4001). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED578873.pdf

Ginsberg, R., & Berry, B. (1990). The folklore of principal evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 3(3), 205–230.

Ginsberg, R., & Thompson, T. (1992). Dilemmas and solutions regarding principal evaluation. Peabody Journal of Education, 68(1), 58–74.

Goff, P., Goldring, E., & Canney, M. (2016). The best laid plans: Pay for performance incentive programs for school leaders. Journal of Education Finance, 42(2), 127–152.

Goldring, E. B., Clark, M. A., Rubin, M., Rogers, L. K., Grissom, J. A., Gill, B., Kautz, T., McCullough, M., Neel, M., & Burnett, A. (2020). Changing the principal supervisor role to better support principals: Evidence from the Principal Supervisor Initiative. Wallace Foundation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED607073.pdf

Goldring, E., Cravens, X. C., Murphy, J., Porter, A. C., Elliott, S. N., & Carson, B. (2009). The evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban districts assess leadership? Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 19–39. https://www.academia.edu/33027832/The_Evaluation_of_Principals_What_and_How_do_States_and_Districts_Assess_Leadership

Goldring, E., Cravens, X., Porter, A., Murphy, J., & Elliott, S. (2015). The convergent and divergent validity of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED). Journal of Educational Administration, 53(2), 177–196.

Goldring, E. B., Mavrogordato, M., & Haynes, K. T. (2015). Multisource principal evaluation data: Principals’ orientations and reactions to teacher feedback regarding their leadership effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(4), 572–599.

Grissom, J. A., Blissett, R. S. L., & Mitani, H. (2018). Evaluating school principals: Supervisor ratings of principal practice and principal job performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 446–472.

Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. Wallace Foundation. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/How-Principals-Affect-Students-and-Schools.pdf

Grissom, J. A., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2015). Using student test scores to measure principal performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 3–28.

Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2017). Assessing principals’ assessments: Subjective evaluations of teacher effectiveness in low- and high-stakes environments. Education Finance and Policy, 12(3), 369–395.

Hackmann, D. G. (2016). Considerations of administrative licensure, provider type, and leadership quality: Recommendations for research, policy, and practice. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 11(1), 43–67.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make a difference in school improvement? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 38(6), 654–678.

Halverson, R., Kelley, C., & Kimball, S. (2004). Implementing teacher evaluation systems: How principals make sense of complex artifacts to shape local instructional practice. In W. K. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Educational administration, policy, and reform: Research and measurement (pp. 153–188). Information Age.

Hamilton, L. S., Engberg, J., Steiner, E. D., Nelson, C. A., & Yuan, K. (2012). Improving school leadership through support, evaluation, and incentives: The Pittsburgh Principal Incentive Program. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1223.html

Henry, G. T., & Viano, S. L. (2016). An evaluation of the North Carolina educator evaluation system for school administrators: 2010–11 through 2013–14. Consortium of Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina. https://cerenc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Evaluation-of-NC-Principal-Evaluation-FINAL-2-17-16.pdf

Herrmann, M., & Ross, C. (2016). Measuring principals’ effectiveness: Results from New Jersey’s first year of statewide principal evaluation (REL 2016–2156). Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Educa­tion. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/midatlantic/pdf/REL_2016156.pdf

Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–569.

Kane, T., & Staiger, D. (2002). The promise and pitfalls of using imprecise school accountability measures. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(4), 91–114.

Kimball, S. M., Arrigoni, J., Clifford, M., Yoder, M., & Milanowski, A. (2015). District leadership for effective principal evaluation and support. Teacher Incentive Fund, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED566525.pdf

Kimball, S. M., & Milanowski, A. (2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(1), 34–70.

Kimball, S. M., Milanowski, A., & McKinney, S. A. (2009). Assessing the promise of standards-based performance evaluation for principals: Results from a randomized trial. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(3), 233–263.

Lashway, L. (2003). Improving principal evaluation. ERIC Digest. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED482347.pdf

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership and Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332530133_Seven_strong_claims_about_successful_school_leadership_revisited

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading school turnaround: How successful school leaders transform low-performing schools. John Wiley & Sons.

Liebowitz, D. D., & Porter, L. (2019). The effect of principal behaviors on student, teacher, and school outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 785–827.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.

McCullough, M., Lipscomb, S., Chiang, H., Gill, B., & Cheban, I. (2016). Measuring school leaders’ effectiveness: Final report from a multiyear pilot of Pennsylvania’s Framework for Leadership (REL 2016-106). Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED563446.pdf

Mendels, P. (2017). Getting intentional about principal evaluations. Educational Leadership, 74(8), 52–56.

Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. (2006). Learning-centered leadership: A conceptual foundation. Wallace Foundation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505798.pdf

National Center on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) (2019). State of the states 2019: Teacher and principal evaluation policy. https://www.nctq.org/pages/State-of-the-States-2019:-Teacher-and-Principal-Evaluation-Policy

National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders 2015. https://ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/ProfessionalStandardsforEducationalLeaders2015forNPBEAFINAL.pdf

Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & May, H. (2010). Investigating the validity and reliability of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education. Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 282–313.

Portin, B., Feldman, S., & Knapp, M. S. (2006). Purposes, uses, and practices of leadership assessment in education. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/4-Purposes-Uses-and-Practices.pdf

Reeves, D. B. (2005). Assessing educational leaders: Evaluating performance for improved individual and organizational results. Corwin Press.

Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on school outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.

Rogers, L. K., Goldring, E., Rubin, M., & Grissom, J. A. (2019). Principal supervisors and the challenge of principal support and development. In S. J. Zepeda & J. A., Ponticell (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of educational supervision (pp. 433–457). John Wiley & Sons.

Rubin, M., Goldring, E., Neel, M. A., Rogers, L. K., & Grissom, J. A. (2020). Changing principal supervision to develop principals’ instructional leadership capacity. In P. Youngs, J. Kim, & M. Mavrogordato (Eds.), Exploring principal development and teacher outcomes: How principals can strengthen instruction, teacher retention, and student achievement (pp. 41–55). Routledge.

Sanders, K. (2008). The purpose and practices of leadership assessment as perceived by select public middle and elementary school principals in the Midwest (Publication No. 3334686). [Doctoral dissertation, Aurora University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Scott, G. A. (2013). Race to the top: States implementing teacher and principal evaluation systems despite challenges (Report to the Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives. GAO-13-777). United States Government Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-13-777.pdf

Sun, M., & Youngs, P. (2009). How does district principal evaluation affect learning cen­tered principal leadership? Evidence from Michigan school districts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(4), 411–445. https://education.uw.edu/sites/default/files/u1406/Sun%20%26%20Youngs%20%282009%29%20district%20evaluation.pdf

Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56.

Sutcher, L., Podolsky, A., & Espinoza, D. (2017). Supporting principals’ learning: Key features of effective programs. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Supporting_Principals_Learning_REPORT.pdf

Texas Education Agency. (2019). Charting a course for the professional growth and development of principals: Evaluation process. https://tpess.org/principal/evaluation/

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top Program: Executive summary. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). ESEA flexibility: Frequently asked questions. https://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/esea-flexibility-faqs.doc

Viano, S., Pham, L. D., Henry, G. T., Kho, A., & Zimmer, R. (2021). What teachers want: School factors predicting teachers’ decisions to work in low-performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 58(1), 201–233.

Wayne, A., Garet, M., Wellington, A., & Chiang, H. (2018). Promoting educator effectiveness: The effects of two key strategies (NCEE 2018-4009). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184009/pdf/20184009.pdf

Zepeda, S. J., Lanoue, P. D., Price, N. F., & Jimenez, A. M. (2014). Principal evaluation—linking individual and building-level progress: Making the connections and embracing the tensions. School Leadership & Management, 34(4), 324–351. http://www.jess-legs.com/assets/downloads/pdsd/pdsd-scholarship/zepeda-lanoue-price.pdf

 

 

Publications

TITLE
SYNOPSIS
CITATION
A Research-Informed Design for Preparing Principals: What We Could Do Differently and Why It Might Work

This paper explores an alternative principal development program that combines the development of shared leadership and individual leaders as schools pursue their learning-improvement agendas.

Bellamy, T. (2015). A Research-Informed Design for Preparing Principals: What We Could Do Differently and Why It Might Work Retrieved from ../../uploads/docs/2015WingSummitTB.pdf.

 

Data Mining

TITLE
SYNOPSIS
CITATION
What Distinguishes Effective Supervisors From Marginal Supervisors?
This inquiry looks at research on the impact of supervisors and the activities they engage in that most improve staff performance.
States, J. (2011). What Distinguishes Effective Supervisors From Marginal Supervisors? Retrieved from what-distinguishes-effective-supervisors.
How Effective Are Principals in Assessing Teacher Skills?
This is an examination of a tool used for assessing principal's accuracy in determining teacher’s abilities to effectively deliver instruction in a classroom.
States, J. (2012). How Effective Are Principals in Assessing Teacher Skills? Retrieved from how-effective-are-principals.
Can teacher performance pay improve student achievement?
This literature review examines the use of performance compensation as a tool for improving teacher and student performance.
States, J. (2015). Can teacher performance pay improve student achievement? Retrieved from can-teacher-performance-pay.
What evidence do principals rely on in assessing the quality of a teacher’s instruction?
This analysis examines principal sources of information on teacher instructional competency and the amount of time spent assessing teacher's instructional skills.
States, J. (2015). What evidence do principals rely on in assessing the quality of a teacher’s instruction? Retrieved from what-evidence-do-principals.

 

Presentations

TITLE
SYNOPSIS
CITATION
A Research-Informed Design for Preparing Principals: What We Could Do Differently and Why It Might Work
This paper explores an alternative principal development program that combines the development of shared leadership and individual leaders as schools pursue their learning-improvement agendas.
Bellamy, T. (2015). A Research-Informed Design for Preparing Principals: What We Could Do Differently and Why It Might Work [Powerpoint Slides]. Retrieved from 2015-wing-presentation-tom-bellamy.
Installing Tier 2/3 Behavior Supports in Schools: The Principal's Role
This paper describes the development, content and delivery of a professional development course for Principals regarding their role in multi-tiered systems of school-wide positive behavior supports.
Eber, L. (2015). Installing Tier 2/3 Behavior Supports in Schools: The Principal's Role [Powerpoint Slides]. Retrieved from 2015-wing-presentation-lucille-eber.
Now What? The Current State of Principal Preparation, Evaluation, and Support
This paper examines the current state of principal development in the context of best practices, including: evidence-based curriculum, well-trained instructors, effective coaching, and ongoing feedback and support.
Keyworth, R. (2015). Now What? The Current State of Principal Preparation, Evaluation, and Support [Powerpoint Slides]. Retrieved from 2015-calaba-presentation-randy-keyworth.
Principal Leadership and Why It Matters
This paper outlines what we know from both the research and the field in terms of principal leadership. It addresses the research and implementation challenges of developing effective principals.
McNulty, B. (2015). Principal Leadership and Why It Matters [Powerpoint Slides]. Retrieved from 2015-wing-presentation-brian-mcnulty.
TITLE
SYNOPSIS
CITATION
Evaluating Principals: Balancing Accountability with Professional Growth

The goal of this paper is to provide policymakers with recommendations for the design and implementation of strong principal development and evaluation systems. States and local school systems that pursue these ideas can use principal evaluation to drive a powerful vision of principal effectiveness and, by consequence, improve outcomes for all students.

(2010). Evaluating Principals: Balancing Accountability with Professional Growth. New Leaders for New Schools.

Principal Evaluation Rubric

Overview New Leaders has recently published a new principal evaluation model. It includes seven modules: (1) Overview of the New Leaders Principal Evaluation Model, (2) The Principal Evaluation Rubric, (3) Setting a Principal Practice Goal + Strategic Planning, (4) Identifying Evidence, (5) Direct Observation of Principal Practice, (6) Collecting and Mapping Evidence to the Principal Practice Rubric, and (7) Providing Actionable Feedback.

(2012). Putting Principal Evaluation into Practice. New Leaders

Putting Principal Evaluation into Practice

Overview New Leaders has recently published a new principal evaluation model. It includes seven modules: (1) Overview of the New Leaders Principal Evaluation Model, (2) The Principal Evaluation Rubric, (3) Setting a Principal Practice Goal + Strategic Planning, (4) Identifying Evidence, (5) Direct Observation of Principal Practice, (6) Collecting and Mapping Evidence to the Principal Practice Rubric, and (7) Providing Actionable Feedback.

(2012). Putting Principal Evaluation into Practice. New Leaders

Change Agents: How States Can Develop Effective School Leaders

This report highlights the very important role that states play in cultivating principal leadership talent. This paper speaks concern about improving human resources management at the state and district levels, doing quality control at the entry requirements, and give states tools and strategies to re-frame policies to bolster the principal talent pipeline. 

Change Agents: How States Can Develop Effective School Leaders. (2013). New York: New Leaders. Retrieved from  

Building a stronger principalship: Volume 4: Evaluating and supporting principals

This report addresses the implementation of principal evaluation and related support as of 2015, viewing implementation in the context of districts’ aims, constraints, and capacity. Principal evaluation is part of the Wallace Principal Pipeline Initiative design, intended both as a means of assessing novice principals’ performance against clear standards and as a roadmap for tailoring professional development and one-on-one support to identified areas of need.

Anderson, L. M., & Turnbull, B. J. (2016). Evaluating and Supporting Principals. Building a Stronger Principalship: Volume 4. Policy Studies Associates, Inc.

Evaluating and Supporting Principals

This report analyzes the progress of the districts participated in the Principal Pipeline Initiative sponsored by The Wallace Foundation in implementing the fourth key component, evaluation and support systems aligned with the district-adopted standards for leader. 

Anderson, L. M., Turnbull, B. J. (2016). Evaluating and Supporting Principals. Building a Stronger Principalship, vol 4. 

Antecedents And Consequences Of Reactions To Developmental 360° Feedback

This study investigates factors that influence leaders’ reactions to 360° feedback and the relationship of feedback reactions to subsequent development activities and changes in behavior.

Atwater, L. E., & Brett, J. F. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of reactions to developmental 360 feedback. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(3), 532-548.

Performance incentives for school administrators.

Districts usually implement principal performance pay systems at the urging of state policymakers or as part of grant-funded efforts. This briefing summarizes research about the efficacy of district approaches, describes state laws in place and offers three considerations for state policymaking.

Baxter, A. (n.d.). Performance incentives for school administrators. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Retrieved from https://www.ncleg.gov/documentsites/committees/BCCI-6680/Nov 28/2bb_sreb_performance_incentives_handout.pdf

 

360° Feedback: Accuracy, Reactions, And Perceptions Of Usefulness

This study examines 360° feedback ratings and reactions to feedback, perceptions of feedback accuracy, perceived usefulness of the feedback, and recipients' receptivity to development.

Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 930.

Laying the foundation for successful school leadership

Districts and states establish minimum eligibility requirements for individuals serving as principals in public schools. The intent of these requirements—which include mandated degrees, prior teaching and/or administrative experience, and certifications—is to ensure a minimum quality standard in the principal candidate pool.

Burkhauser, S., Gates, S. M., Hamilton, L. S., Li, J., & Pierson, A. (2013). Laying the foundation for successful school leadership. RAND.

Do Principals Know Good Teaching When They See It?

This article examines the effectiveness and related issues of current methods of principal evaluation of teachers.

Burns M. (2011). Do Principals Know Good Teaching When They See It?. Educational policy, 19(1), 155-180.

Standards for educational leaders: An analysis
This project seeks to survey and document the knowledge and practice of districts and states that have
developed effective principal evaluation systems, and to share these success stories with others. This
grant-funded report is focused on improving principal evaluation, which is a major thrust of principal
pipeline initiatives.

Canole, M., & Young, M. (2013). Standards for educational leaders: An analysis. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Effective Teaching: What Is It and How Is It Measured?

This paper examines how to measure teacher performance and the practices necessary for increasing teacher trust in systems designed to effectively measure performance.

Cantrell, S., & Scantlebury, J. (2011). Effective Teaching: What Is It and How Is It Measured?. Effective Teaching as a Civil Right, 28.

Improving instructional leadership: A multi-case study of principal perspectives on formal evaluation

In a time when public schools continue to be scrutinized, school leadership never mattered more in order to exercise school reform. This qualitative study examined how five principals working in an urban school district perceived their evaluation and how it contributed to their practice.

Chacon-Robles, B. (2018). Improving instructional leadership: A multi-case study perspectives on formal evaluations. The University of Texas at El Paso.

Is school value added indicative of principal quality?

In a time when public schools continue to be scrutinized, school leadership never mattered more in order to exercise school reform. This qualitative study examined how five principals working in an urban school district perceived their evaluation and how it contributed to their practice.

Chacon-Robles, B. (2018). Improving instructional leadership: A multi-case study perspectives on formal evaluations. The University of Texas at El Paso.

Principal leadership in new teacher induction: Becoming agents of change

This small-scale pilot study investigated the role of school principals in the induction of new teachers in Ontario, Canada.

Cherian, F., & Daniel, Y. (2008). Principal Leadership in New Teacher Induction: Becoming Agents of Change. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership3(2), 1-11.

Rethinking principal evaluation: A new paradigm informed by research and practice

As the federal government urges states and districts to create principal evaluation systems, largely linked to student achievement, it’s also time that principals be part of the conversation. Without the inclusion of the expertise of school and instructional leaders, the new evaluation systems created across the country may not necessarily be improved or attain desired results, and, as a result, principals may not view feedback from these new evaluation systems as informative for improvement of their practice or their schools.

Connelly, G., & Schooley, M. (2013). National Association of Elementary School Principals. Leadership Matters: What the Research Says About the Importance of Principal Leadership.

Rethinking Leadership: The Changing Role of Principal Supervisors

This report consists of two parts: a survey of 67 public school systems district staff serving as principal supervisors and on-site analysis of six districts pre-service training and support systems for new principals.

Corcoran, A., et al. (2013). Rethinking Leadership: The Changing Role of Principal Supervisors. The Wallace Foundation.

The politics of principal evaluation

This article examines the politics of principal evaluation through both an extensive review of the literature and in-depth interviews with principals and superintendents. The findings reveal that the format and processes used in principal evaluation often vary from one district to another and that principals and superintendents frequently hold different perspectives about the purposes and usefulness of evaluation.

Davis, S. H., & Hensley, P. A. (1999). The politics of principal evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education13(4), 383-403.

Useful or useless? Principal perceptions of the Texas Principal Evaluation and Support System

Principal evaluations can be important tools for improving leadership practice, but evaluations have often described by principals and researchers as unsystematic and lacking timely and actionable feedback. This study examines principal perceptions of the Texas Principal Evaluation and Support System.

DeMatthews, D. E., Scheffer, M., & Kotok, S. (2020). Useful or useless? Principal perceptions of the Texas principal evaluation and support system. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 1942775120933920.

Education Leadership: A Bridge to School Reform

This report describes how Denver Public Schools hired people to coach and evaluate its principals.

DeVita, M., Colvin, R., Darling-Hammond, L., Haycock, K. (2007). Education Leadership: A Bridge to School Reform. The Wallace Foundation.

Doing the “real” work: How superintendents’ sensemaking shapes principal evaluation policies and practices in school districts

Almost every state in the United States has revamped its principal evaluation policies since 2009, yet we know little about how they are implemented. Based on interviews and document analysis in 21 small- and medium-sized school districts, we found that superintendents’ sense making shaped their implementation of policy.

Donaldson, M. L., Mavrogordato, M., Youngs, P., Dougherty, S., & Al Ghanem, R. (2021). “Doing the ‘Real’Work”: How Superintendents’ Sensemaking Shapes Principal Evaluation Policies and Practices in School Districts. AERA Open7, 2332858420986177.

Principal evaluation under the elementary and secondary Every Student Succeeds act: A comprehensive policy review

A growing body of research recognizes the critical role of the school principal, demonstrating that school principals’ effects on student outcomes are second only to those of teachers. Yet policy makers have often paid little attention to principals, choosing instead to focus policy reform on teachers. In the last decade, this pattern has shifted somewhat.

Donaldson, M., Mavrogordato, M., Dougherty, S. M., Ghanem, R. A., & Youngs, P. (2021). Principal Evaluation under the Elementary and Secondary Every Student Succeeds Act: A Comprehensive Policy Review.

Appraising principal evaluation and development: Current research and future directions.

In the past decade, nearly all states have revised their principal evaluation policies, prompting school districts across the country to rethink how they are evaluating school leaders. The new principal evaluation systems that emerge out of these policy reforms often couple increased accountability with a greater emphasis on development in an effort to spur continuous improvement in school leadership practices.

Donaldson, M., Mavrogordato, M., Youngs, P., & Dougherty, S. (2020). Appraising Principal Evaluation and Development: Current Research and Future Directions. Exploring Principal Development and Teacher Outcomes, 56-68.

Leading for Instructional Improvement: How Successful Leaders Develop Teaching and Learning Expertise

This book shows how principals and other school leaders can develop the skills necessary for teachers to deliver high quality instruction by introducing principals to a five-part model of effective instruction.

Fink, S., & Markholt, A. (2011). Leading for instructional improvement: How successful leaders develop teaching and learning expertise. John Wiley & Sons.

A bridge too far? Challenges in evaluating prin­cipal effectiveness

This research has profound implications for states and districts implementing principal evaluation systems, particularly those making high-stakes decisions about principals based on statistical estimates of principal effectiveness. Indeed, such statistical estimates should be used not for making judgments or decisions about principals but rather as a screening tool to identify where states and districts should focus more in-depth and accurate strategies to evaluate principal effectiveness.

Fuller, E. J., & Hollingworth, L. (2014). A bridge too far? Challenges in evaluating principal effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly50(3), 466-499.

Evaluating state principal evaluation plans across the United States

Recent federal legislation has created strong incentives for states to adopt principal evaluation systems, many of which include new measures of principal effectiveness such as estimates of student growth and changes in school climate. Yet, there has been little research on principal evaluation systems and no state-by-state analysis of the principal evaluation systems adopted at the behest of the legislation.

Fuller, E. J., Hollingworth, L., & Liu, J. (2015). Evaluating state principal evaluation plans across the United States. Journal of Research on Leadership Education10(3), 164-192.

Developing Leaders: The Importance—and the Challenges—of Evaluating Principal Preparation Programs

The role of today's principal is changing, as is the principal workforce. The new generation of principals is younger with less teaching experience, and is more mobile, working more hours, and experiencing more job stress. Understanding how to better prepare new leaders for the role of principal is an urgent policy concern.

George W. Bush Institute, Education Reform Initiative, (2016). Developing Leaders: The Importance—and the Challenges—of Evaluating Principal Preparation Programs. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED570672

Make Room for the Principal Supervisors

This report describes how Denver Public Schools hired personnel to coach and evaluate its principals.

Gill, J., (2013). Make Room for the Principal Supervisors. The Wallace Foundation.

The folklore of principal evaluation

Principal evaluation shares many characteristics with the more general field of personnel evaluation. That is, evaluations may have the purpose of gathering data to help improve performance (formative), or may use the collected information to make decisions about promotion or firing (summative).

Ginsberg, R., & Berry, B. (1990). The folklore of principal evaluation. Journal of personnel evaluation in education3(3), 205-230.

Dilemmas and solutions regarding principal evaluation.

School reform embraced the American psyche in the 1980s, and waves of initiatives emerged to revitalize and improve a system perceived as not meeting the country's needs. Today, ideas such as school choice, for-profit
schools, site-based management, participatory decision-making, teacher empowerment, school restructuring, and an array of other reforms fill the educational lexicon as reformers seek alternative means for better educating the nation's youth.

Ginsberg, R., & Thompson, T. (1990). Dilemmas and solutions regarding principal evaluation. Peabody Journal of Education68(1), 58-74.

The best laid plans: Pay for performance incentive programs for school leaders

In an era of heightened accountability and limited fiscal resources, school districts have sought novel ways to increase the effectiveness of their principals in an effort to increase student proficiency. To address these needs, some districts have turned to pay-for- performance programs, aligning leadership goals with financial incentives to motivate and direct leadership efforts. Pay-for-performance strategies have been applied to schools for decades.

Goff, P., Goldring, E., & Canney, M. (2016). The best laid plans: Pay for performance incentive programs for school leaders. Journal of Education Finance42(2), 127-152.

Changing the principal supervisor role to better support principals: Evidence from the Principal Supervisor Initiative

Principal supervisors are a potential point of leverage for supporting and developing principals' effectiveness, but little is known about the effectiveness of this approach. The overarching hypothesis of the PSI was that changing the role of principal supervisors from overseeing operations to developing principals' instructional leadership practices could drive improvement in principal effectiveness.

Goldring, E. B., Clark, M. A., Rubin, M., Rogers, L. K., Grissom, J. A., Gill, B., ... & Burnett, A. (2020). Changing the Principal Supervisor Role to Better Support Principals: Evidence from the Principal Supervisor Initiative. Mathematica.

Multisource principal evaluation data: Principals’ orientations and reactions to teacher feedback regarding their leadership effectiveness

As performance feedback continues to become more commonplace in school settings, it will become increasingly necessary to build capacity around the processes of giving and receiving feedback. Results from this study have implications for how principals can be supported to use their evaluation data.

Goldring, E. B., Mavrogordato, M., & Haynes, K. T. (2015). Multisource principal evaluation data: Principals’ orientations and reactions to teacher feedback regarding their leadership effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly51(4), 572-599.

The Evaluation of Principals: What and How do States and Urban Districts Assess Leadership?

This study present results of a comprehensive review of principal leadership assessment practices in the United States. Using the learning-centered leadership framework, it focused on identifying the congruence (or lack thereof) between documented assessment practices and the research-based criteria for effective leadership that are associated with improved school performance.

Goldring, E., Cravens, X. C., Murphy, J., Porter, A. C., Elliott, S. N., & Carson, B. (2009). The evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban districts assess leadership?. The Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 19-39

Assessing Learning-Centered Leadership: Connections to Research, Professional Standards, and Current Practices

With support from The Wallace Foundation, a Vanderbilt University team is developing a tool to monitor and assess the performance of school leaders. The Vanderbilt assessment will differ from existing tools by focusing 100 percent on instructional leadership and examining both principals and leadership teams. The paper, with two companion reports, presents the research behind and conceptual framework for the tool.

Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2009). Assessing learning-centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards, and current practices. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(1), 1-36.

Assessing principals’ assessments: Subjective evaluations of teacher effectiveness in low- and high-stakes environments

Teacher effectiveness varies substantially, yet principals’ evaluations of teachers often fail to differentiate performance among teachers. We offer new evidence on principals’ subjective evaluations of their teachers’ effectiveness using two sources of data from a large, urban district: principals’ high-stakes personnel evaluations of teachers, and their low-stakes assessments of a subsample of those teachers provided to the researchers.

Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2017). Assessing principals’ assessments: Subjective evaluations of teacher effectiveness in low-and high-stakes environments. Education Finance and Policy12(3), 369-395.

Evaluating school principals: Supervisor ratings of principal practice and principal job performance.

Numerous studies investigate high-stakes personnel evaluation systems in education, but nearly all focus on evaluation of teachers. The authors instead examine the evaluation of school principals at scale using data from the first 4 years of implementation of Tennessee’s multiple-measure administrator evaluation system. 

Grissom, J. A., Blissett, R. S. L., & Mitani, H. (2018). Evaluating school principals: Supervisor ratings of principal practice and principal job performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis40(3), 446–472.

How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research

School leadership matters for school outcomes, including student achievement. This assumption has become commonplace since the publication of the highly influential Wallace Foundation–commissioned report by Leithwood and colleagues in 2004. Policymakers and researchers often quote the report's main conclusion that “leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to what students learn at school”.

Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools.

Using student test scores to measure principal performance.

this article identifies multiple conceptual approaches for capturing the contributions of principals to student test score growth, develops empirical models to reflect these approaches, examines the properties of these models, and compares the results of the models empirically using data from a large urban school district.

Grissom, J. A., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2015). Using student test scores to measure principal performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis37(1), 3–28.

A review of three decades of doctoral studies using the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale: A lens on methodological progress in educational leadership

The study finds that interest in instructional leadership among scholars and practitioners remained strong throughout the period of the review, the PIMRS has proven a reliable and valid data collection tool, and the use of research methodology has improved in several specific areas. Nonetheless, the results also suggest that the conceptual frameworks and methodologies used by these doctoral students were, on the whole, inadequate for the task of contributing to either the theoretical or the practical knowledge base in this field.

Hallinger, P. (2011). A review of three decades of doctoral studies using the principal instructional management rating scale: A lens on methodological progress in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly47(2), 271-306.

Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals.

This article presents results from a study that examined the instructional management behavior of 10 elementary school principals in a single school district. The primary goal of the research was to describe the instructional management behavior of these principals in terms of specific job behaviors.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–247.

Measuring principals’ effectiveness: Results from New Jersey’s first year of statewide principal evaluation

States and districts across the country are implementing new principal evaluation systems that include measures of the quality of principals' school leadership practices and measures of student achievement growth. Because these evaluation systems will be used for high- stakes decisions, it is important that the component measures of the evaluation systems fairly and accurately differentiate between effective and ineffective principals.

Herrmann, M., & Ross, C. (2016). Measuring principals’ effectiveness: Results from New Jersey’s first year of statewide principal evaluation. Mathematica Policy Research Reports available from https://econpapers. repec. org/paper/mprmprres/5f9c12f1d7404636aaf2e98e5abfaf6 f. htm.

How Principals in Public and Private Schools Use Their Time: 2011-12. Stats in Brief. NCES 2018-054.

This brief examines the mean (average) percentage of time that principals reported spending on these activities in the 2011–12 school year, both overall and by selected school, staffing, and principal characteristics.

Hoyer, K. M., & Sparks, D. (2017). How Principals in Public and Private Schools Use Their Time: 2011-12. Stats in Brief. NCES 2018-054. National Center for Education Statistics.

Do Principals Fire the Worst Teachers?

This paper examines how principals make decisions regarding teacher dismissal. The study estimates the relative weight that school administrators place on a variety of teacher characteristics and finds evidence that principals do consider teacher absences and value-added measures, along with several demographic characteristics, in determining which teachers to dismiss.

Jacob, B. A. (2010). Do principals fire the worst teachers? (No. w15715). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Can Principals Identify Effective Teachers? Evidence on Subjective Performance Evaluation in Education

This paper examines how well principals can distinguish between more and less effective teachers. To put principal evaluations in context, we compare them with the traditional determinants of teacher compensation-education and experience-as well as value-added measures of teacher effectiveness.

Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26(1), 101-136.

Improving principal evaluation

In recent years, educators and policymakers have agreed that principals are critical to school success and have repeatedly pointed out the need to aggressively recruit and select highly qualified candidates. Surprisingly, however, the evaluation of principals has attracted much less interest. Recent policy documents on school leadership have largely ignored the topic, and the empirical research base is very thin.

Lashway, L. (2003). Improving principal evaluation.

Principal Evaluation Handbook

New Leaders has recently published a new principal evaluation model. It includes seven modules: (1) Overview of the New Leaders Principal Evaluation Model, (2) The Principal Evaluation Rubric, (3) Setting a Principal Practice Goal + Strategic Planning, (4) Identifying Evidence, (5) Direct Observation of Principal Practice, (6) Collecting and Mapping Evidence to the Principal Practice Rubric, and (7) Providing Actionable Feedback.

Leaders, N. (2012). New leaders principal evaluation handbook. New York: Author.

Measuring school leaders’ effectiveness: Final report from a multiyear pilot of Pennsylvania’s Framework for Leadership

States and districts across the country are revising how they evaluate school principals. Those that are doing so face a substantial challenge: there is scant evidence on the validity and reliability of current principal evaluation tools. Pennsylvania is among states that are developing a new tool for evaluating principals and assistant principals.

McCullough, M., Lipscomb, S., Chiang, H., Gill, B., & Cheban, I. (2016). Measuring school leaders’ effectiveness: Final report from a multiyear pilot of Pennsylvania’s Framework for Leadership (No. afa7e4c19e4140f3b17422e994fc4e1d). Mathematica Policy Research.

Principals in the Pipeline

This paper describe four essential elements of effective principals: principal standards, high-quality training, selective hiring, and a combination of solid on-the-job support and performance evaluation, especially for new hires.

Mendels, P. (2012). Principals in the pipeline. The Learning Professional33(3), 48.

Getting intentional about principal evaluations

Under new frameworks, districts have better aligned their evaluations with their school-leadership standards and developed nuanced rubrics for evidence-collection and evaluation ratings. They have also altered the role of principal supervisors so that they spend more time in schools working with principals.

Mendels, P. (2017). Getting Intentional about Principal Evaluations. Educational Leadership74(8), 52-56.

Investigating the validity and reliability of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education

The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) is a multirater assessment of principals' learning-centered leadership. The instrument was developed based on the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. In this article, we report on the validity and reliability evidence for the VAL-ED accumulated in a national field trial.

Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., Goldring, E. B., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & May, H. (2010). Investigating the validity and reliability of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education. The Elementary School Journal111(2), 282-313.

State of the states 2019: Teacher and principal evaluation policy.

This report is the first in a series by the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) that examines the current status of states' teacher policies. Updated on a two-year cycle, each will cover a specific area of teacher policy. This report focuses on state teacher policies governing what states require in evaluations of both teachers and principals.

Ross, E., & Walsh, K. (2019). State of the states 2019: Teacher and principal evaluation policy. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.

The purpose and practices of leadership assessment as perceived by select public middle and elementary school principals in the Midwest

The purpose of this study was to explore the purpose and practices of leadership evaluation as perceived by principals. The researcher wanted to identify the perceived purposes and practices of leadership evaluation as described by nine public school principals, and to respond to the apparent need expressed by administrators to receive substantive feedback.

Sanders, K. (2008). The purpose and practices of leadership assessment as perceived by select public middle and elementary school principals in the Midwest. Aurora University.

Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective.

This 4-year longitudinal study, funded by the National Science Foundation and the Spencer Foundation, is designed to make the “black box” of leadership practice more transparent through an in-depth analysis of leadership practice. This research identifies the tasks, actors, actions, and interactions of school leadership as they unfold together in the daily life of schools. 

Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher30(3), 23–28. http://dm.education.wisc.edu/rrhalverson/intellcont/SpillaneHalversonDiamond%20ER-1.pdf

 
Model principal supervisor professional standards

The lived experience of principal supervisors in Long Beach Unified School District consisted of an intentional and aligned system of principal evaluations, coaching, and principal supervisor professional learning community. Principal supervisors also identified practices such as increased visits to schools and classrooms with principals, central office departments focused on teaching and learning, and the traits of creating an environment of vulnerability and growth mindset as an important skill set.

Stringer, M. (2017). The 2015 Model Principal Supervisor Professional Standards: Transforming the Role of Principal Supervisors (Doctoral dissertation, Brandman University).

How does district principal evaluation affect learning cen­tered principal leadership

This study used Hierarchical Multivariate Linear models to investigate relationships between principals' behaviors and district principal evaluation purpose, focus, and assessed leadership activities in 13 school districts in Michigan. The study found that principals were more likely to engage in learning-centered leadership behaviors when the purposes of evaluation included principal professional development, school restructuring, and accountability; when the focus of evaluation was related to instructional leadership; and when evaluation addressed leadership in school goal setting, curriculum design, teacher professional development and evaluation, and monitoring student learning.

Sun, M., & Youngs, P. (2009). How does district principal evaluation affect learning-centered principal leadership? Evidence from Michigan school districts. Leadership and Policy in Schools8(4), 411-445.

First-Ever Professional Standards for Principal Supervisors Released

The first-ever standards meant to clarify what principal supervisors should know and be able to do to help principals improve teaching and learning in schools were released on Monday.

Superville, D.R. (2015). First-Ever Professional Standards for Principal Supervisors Released. Eduaction Week. Retrieved from https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/District_Dossier/2015/12/first-ever_professional_standa.html

Principals' Test Not Predictive of Success on the Job: Exam results show racial disparities

New research has found essentially no positive correlation between how would-be principals perform on a widely used licensure exam and their success as school leaders.

Superville. D.S. (2017). Principals' Test Not Predictive of Success on the Job: Exam results show racial disparities. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/04/05/principals-test-not-predictive-of-success-on.html

Charting a course for the professional growth and development of principals: Evaluation process

The T-PESS process incorporates a series of actions and activities that should be applied on an ongoing basis. While the T-PESS process results in your annual summary assessment, it's better to think of it as an annual process of activities that help you self-assess, establish performance goals, collect and analyze information, and provide constructive feedback, improving your quality and effectiveness as the school leader.

Texas Education Agency. (2019). Charting a course for the professional growth and development of principalsEvaluation process.

The Principal Pipeline Initiative in Action

This is the fifth report from an evaluation of the Principal Pipeline Initiative (PPI), in which six large urban school districts have received support for strengthening novice principals' capabilities through specific strategies. The report details the implementation approaches, accomplishments, and challenges of participating districts; identifies factors that helped or impeded their progress; highlights lessons learned; and presents implications for policymakers and other districts. 

Turnbull, B. J., Anderson, L. M., Riley, D. L., MacFarlane, J. R., & Aladjem, D. K. (2016). The Principal Pipeline Initiative in Action. Building a Stronger Principalship: Volume 5. Policy Studies Associates, Inc.

Improving State Evaluation of Principal Preparation Programs

Intended for state officials involved in the assessment and approval of university and other programs to train future school principals, this report describes five design principles for effective program evaluation.

UCEA and New Leaders (2016). Improving state evaluation of principal preparation programs. Retrieved from: www.sepkit.org

What are the different types of principals across the United States? A latent class analysis of principal perception of leadership.

Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify different types of principals across the U.S. The authors analyzed the 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey as it presents a unique opportunity to study the different types of U.S. principals since it contains leadership measures not found in other national surveys or administrations. A final sample of 7,650 public schools and principals were included in the analysis.

Urick, A., & Bowers, A. J. (2014). What are the different types of principals across the United States? A latent class analysis of principal perception of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly50(1), 96–134. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1031.4904&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 
Principal evaluation—linking individual and building-level progress: Making the connections and embracing the tensions

The article examines the tensions one superintendent in the USA experienced as he evaluated principals in a high-stakes environment that had undergone numerous transformations at the central office. Using qualitative methods, primarily, shadowing techniques, observations and debriefing, the following tensions emerged and were examined in light of the work of the superintendent evaluating principal performance.

Zepeda, S. J., Lanoue, P. D., Price, N. F., & Jimenez, A. M. (2014). Principal evaluation–linking individual and building-level progress: Making the connections and embracing the tensions. School Leadership & Management34(4), 324-351.

Addressing Challenges in Evaluating School Principal Improvement Efforts
This report describes the challenges states, districts, and other entities encounter as they evaluate school reform.
Burkhauser, S., Pierson, A., Gates, S., and Hamilton, L. (2012) Assessing the Relationship Between Administrator Preparation Programs and Job Performance. Rand Corporation.
School Principals and School Performance
This paper uses data from New York City to estimate how the characteristics of school principals relate to school performance, as measured by students' standardized exam scores and other outcomes. There is little evidence of any relationship between school performance and principal education and pre-principal work experience, but some evidence that experience as an assistant principal at the principal's current school is associated with higher performance among inexperienced principals.
Clark, D., Martorell, P., & Rockoff, J. (2009). School Principals and School Performance. Working Paper 38. National Center for Analysis of longitudinal data in Education research.
Practical Guide To Designing Comprehensive Principal Evaluation Systems
This guide is intended to assist states and districts in developing systems of principal evaluation and support and is informed by research on performance evaluation.
Clifford, M., Hansen, U. J., and Wraight, S. (2012). Practical Guide To Designing Comprehensive Principal Evaluation Systems. American Institutes for Research.
Measuring Principal Performance: How Rigorous Are Commonly Used Principal Performance Assessment Instruments?
This study reviewed eight publicly available formative assessments of principal performance, focusing on the tool’s approach, time requirement, content and construct validity, and reliability.
Condon, C., & Clifford, M. (2010). Measuring Principal Performance: How Rigorous Are Commonly Used Principal Performance Assessment Instruments? A Quality School Leadership Issue Brief. Learning Point Associates.
The Policies and Practices of Principal Evaluation
This paper provides a literature review of 68 research papers published from 1980 through 2010 on the topic of principal evaluation.
Davis, S., Kearney, K., Sanders, N., Thomas, C., & Leon, R. (2011). The policies and practices of principal evaluation: A review of the literature. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
What We Know About Upward Appraisals of Management: Facilitating the Future Use of UPAs
This is a review of the literature on upward performance appraisal (UPA). It reveals that UPA is an under-used management tool; however, compared to traditional top-down appraisals, the focus of UPAs may be a better fit as an instrument for continuous improvement.
Hall, J. L., Leiaecker, J. K., & DiMarco, C. (1996). What we know about upward appraisals of management: facilitating the future use of UPAs. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(3), 209-226.
Principal's Time Use And School Effectiveness
This paper conducts a time-use analysis of data gathered from observing high school principals in Miami-Dade County Public Schools.
Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal's time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491-523.
TITLE
SYNOPSIS
Center for Creative Leadership
The Center for Creative Leadership provides research, training, consultation, and support for schools to improve their leadership capacity.
Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE)
CPRE looks at issues of teacher compensation, school finance, and principal evaluation for PK20.
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
CCSSO is a nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization of public officials who head departments of elementary and secondary education in the states, provides leadership, advocacy, and technical assistance on major educational issues.
National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP)
NAESP is a professional organization serving elementary and middle school principals and other education leaders throughout the United States, Canada, and overseas.
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)
NASSP is a professional organization serving secondary school principals and other education leaders throughout the United States, Canada, and overseas.
New Leaders
New Leaders is a national nonprofit that develops transformational school leaders and designs effective leadership policies and practices for school systems across the country.
School Leaders Network
School Leaders Network provides the structure for public school principals to work together in SLN Networks to solve real problems, across whole campuses, as opposed to teacher-by-teacher.
Back to Top