Research Roundup 20, 3 (Spring 2004)
Principal Evaluation
By Larry Lashway
Recent debates over the future of the principalship, focused mainly on training, recruitment, and induction, have generated numerous strategies designed to ensure a reliable supply of qualified candidates. But in all this activity, a rather neglected domain for researchers and policymakers is principal evaluation. Surveys suggest that most principals' evaluations are perfunctory, aimed only at satisfying basic public accountability. Current practices ensure a minimum level of competence, but offer little help for principals trying to move from adequacy to excellence.
In recent years, sharply increased demands for performance and accountability have led analysts to ask how principal evaluation can be a tool not only for growth but for the larger cause of school improvement. A number of states and districts have begun to propose answers to that question, but these efforts are still in the early stages and not well-researched.
Nonetheless, there are signs of an emerging consensus on "best practices" that can turn a routine bureaucratic chore into a powerful tool for professional development and school improvement. These reviews reflect recent thinking and policy development in this area.
Douglas Reeves offers a critique of current practices and proposes a structure for linking administrator evaluation to school improvement.
The State of Delaware outlines a model design for administrator evaluation.
The School Administrators of Iowa provide an overview of systems-based evaluation and some useful tools to implement it.
Genevieve Brown and Beverly J. Irby describe how portfolios can be used in principal evaluation.
Jennifer Marcoux and colleagues examine a case study of portfolio-based principal evaluation.
Reeves, Douglas. Assessing Educational Leaders: Evaluating Performance for Improved Individual and Organizational Results. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press, 2003. 192 pages. Available from: Corwin Press, 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. 800-818-7243; fax 800-583-2665; e-mail order@corwinpress.com. $69.95 hardcover, $32.95 paperback, plus shipping and handling.
Douglas Reeves starts with a simple premise: "Leadership evaluation at present is a mess." That judgment is based on an examination of evaluation documents and a survey of 500 school leaders in 21 states. Respondents reported that their evaluations were typically positive and accurate, but not notably enlightening. Both principals and their superiors seemed to treat evaluation as a somewhat distasteful process to be gotten through with as little discomfort as possible.
While some schools succeed despite this benign neglect, Reeves argues that increased demands on schools makes the current situation unsustainable. He proposes a system of "multidimensional leadership assessment" that would harness evaluation to school improvement.
To accomplish this, an evaluation process must have several key features. First, it must be linked to specific standards so that performance can be compared with an objective, credible criterion not the performance of others. While conceding that boards are often interested in competitive rankings, Reeves notes that such comparisons usually encourage superficial short-term strategies at the expense of substantive long-term improvement.
Second, trying to assess everything is unrealistic. Schools will generally get better results by concentrating in depth on a few domains rather than lightly touching on many. Reeves also emphasizes that districts should focus on those areas that principals control or directly influence; otherwise the system will fail to distinguish between "the leader who is genuinely effective and one who is merely lucky."
Third, evaluation should distinguish levels of performance rather than simply rating principals pass/fail. Reeves suggests four categories:
- Not meeting standards (failing to understand what needs to be done or unwillingness to do it);
- Progressing (understanding what needs to be done but inconsistent in implementation);
- Proficient (meeting the requirements for organizational success); and
- Exemplary (performing with system-wide impact).
These distinctions are important because they lead to different professional development agendas. Exemplary leaders should be encouraged to share their expertise beyond their current position; proficient leaders should be challenged to become exemplary; progressing principals to move to proficient; and those not meeting standards to progressing.
Districts considering overhauling their evaluation system will find this book helpful not only because of its conceptual framework, but because of the practical advice and concrete examples the author provides.
Delaware Department of Education. Delaware Performance Appraisal System for Administrators. July 2003. Available online at: http://www.state.de.us/research/register/july2003/July%20Proposed.htm
As No Child Left Behind continues to increase performance expectations, some states are exploring ways that personnel evaluation can support achievement goals. This document describes a plan being considered in Delaware that provides a concrete example of what such a system might look like.
The Delaware Performance Appraisal System for Administrators (DPAS II) illustrates several key features of current thinking on principal evaluation. First, it is based on explicit standards, in this case the Delaware Administrator Standards, that are linked to the Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards.
Second, it uses a continuum of performance that recognizes varying levels of achievement: "distinguished"; "proficient"; "basic"; and "unsatisfactory."
Third, the process measures performance in four domains:
- Performance on the six Delaware Administrator Standards;
- Achievement of agreed-upon goals, some chosen by the district and some by the administrator;
- Administrator performance on the school or district improvement plan; and
- Improvement of student achievement (taking into consideration any factors affecting achievement that were not within the administrator's control).
Ratings on these four domains are then compiled into a summative evaluation using the same categories. A "distinguished" principal would have the highest ratings in all four domains; a "proficient" rating would go to principals who have no unsatisfactory domains and no more than one "basic" rating. An overall "basic" rating would be earned by those having all ratings at "basic" or higher. An "unsatisfactory" rating in any domain would result in an overall "unsatisfactory" ranking, which would in turn lead to an assistance plan that specifies necessary improvement.
While not yet implemented, Delaware's plan offers a concrete model for districts seeking to link evaluation to school improvement.
School Administrators of Iowa. Principal Evaluation: A Systems Approach. Clive, Iowa: Author, 2002. 20 pages. Available online at: http://www.sai-iowa.org/principaleval.html
Aligning principal evaluation with professional standards, student learning, and district goals is an example of a systems approach, which aims at creating an organic whole out of a process that may have many elements. The key word is "alignment," and the School Administrators of Iowa (SAI) point out the importance of making sure evaluation is aligned with professional standards, student learning goals, community and district expectations, and school improvement goals.
Evaluation is most beneficial when it promotes the principal's professional growth. In a systems approach, the district must encourage principals to develop plans based on their evaluations and provide professional development opportunities that are clearly linked to the evaluation. Evaluation must also be consistent with research-based criteria about principal effectiveness, and use data from multiple sources.
The bulk of the SAI document consists of suggested timelines, sample action plans, professional growth plans, remediation plans, and other forms and instruments that may provide useful examples to districts in the process of redesigning their evaluation programs.
Brown, Genevieve, and Beverly J. Irby. The Principal Portfolio. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press, 2001. 72 pages. Available from: Corwin Press, Inc., 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. $55.95 hardcover, $24.95 paperback, plus shipping and handling. 800-818-7243; fax 800-583-2665; e-mail order@corwinpress.com.
Portfolios have become ubiquitous in education, from kindergarten through graduate school. In school leadership, they are used in preparation, professional development, career advancement, and evaluation. This book by Genevieve Brown and Beverly Irby takes a comprehensive look at portfolios for principals, including a chapter on evaluation.
The authors note that many of the skills highlighted in recent leadership literature, such as collaboration, shared decision-making, and instructional leadership, are not easily captured by traditional assessment instruments, which focus on outward behavior. By contrast, a principal who has to gather evidence on a goal, reflect on it, and then articulate a summary to an evaluator has an opportunity to convey the full depth of his or her development through a portfolio.
What should be included in an evaluation portfolio? Almost anything might work, as long as it provides evidence about the principal's goals or the district's leadership priorities. For example, if the principal and evaluator had agreed to focus on facilitating growth in others, the evidence might include a video of the principal leading a professional development session, portfolio entries from a teacher the principal has been mentoring, or a targeted plan to improve the teaching of math skills.
In addition, the authors recommend that every portfolio includes a "leadership framework" that sets out the principal's philosophy of education and leadership; vision for students, teachers, and the school; and strategy for realizing the vision. This framework provides a unifying context for whatever other materials are included.
Portfolios are most beneficial when they maximize reflection. Brown and Irby describe a "reflection cycle" that begins with selection of relevant artifacts, describes the circumstances or context for their inclusion, analyzes why they are relevant to the goal under discussion, appraises the results, and explores the implications for future practice.
The presentation of the portfolio should be well thought out, with a clearly understood format and a rubric with clear performance standards. Before their evaluation meetings, principals should review their portfolios to make sure that all key points are covered and can be clearly summarized. In the conference itself, principals should use their portfolios to share their goals, show how they have been met, and present plans for further development.
Marcoux, Jennifer; Genevieve Brown; Beverly J. Irby; and Rafael Lara-Alecio. "A Case Study on the Use of Portfolios in Principal Evaluation." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April 22, 2003. ED 475 710. Available from: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, 7420 Fullerton Rd., Suite 110, Springfield, VA 22153-2852. $8.00. 800-443-3742.
In this paper, Brown and Irby join with two other researchers to study how the portfolio process works in practice. The paper is based on interviews and structured focus groups with three central-office administrators, five principals, and 10 teachers in a rural New York district, as well as an analysis of documents produced during the evaluation process. The results enabled the researchers to draw several tentative conclusions:
- Portfolio evaluation improved leadership effectiveness by providing a common language and vision among teachers, principals, and central-office administrators.
- The process focused attention on student achievement and helped principals develop teacher capacity to help students.
- Use of portfolios in their own development seemed to spur principals to pay more attention and offer more support to teacher professional development.
- Participants reported the reflective process encouraged greater collaboration, communication, trust-building, and problem-solving.
Marcoux and her colleagues concluded that the collaborative dimension of the portfolio process was particularly valuable, since it stimulated conversations between principals and their supervisors on critical issues and provided new insights into problems faced by the school. The small scale of this study precludes broad generalizations about the effectiveness of using portfolios for evaluation. Nonetheless, it offers useful evidence that practitioners find the process both practical and helpful.
Larry Lashway is a research analyst and writer for the Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and Management at the University of Oregon College of Education.
|
