Study of Standards-Based Principal Evaluation in Two Large School Districts

• In Event: Roundtable Session 116
  In Roundtable Session: Principal Accountability: Measuring Performance for Merit Pay and Ongoing Improvement

Abstract

Given the demands of the principal’s role and research identifying the importance of principal leadership, school and district leaders have sought ways to better support, measure and reward principal performance. The Race to the Top and Teacher Incentive Fund programs have increased the demand for reliable and valid measures of principal effectiveness. Although prototype evaluation approaches are emerging (e.g., New Leaders for New Schools, 2010) and the VAL-ED 360 degree assessment has been used as part of principal evaluations in a number of locations, there is little research on the design, impact and validity of newer forms of comprehensive principal evaluation systems within school districts. This paper presents findings from studies of two school districts that implemented different principal evaluation approaches to assess and guide principal practice. The study addresses two questions: 1) How do the evaluation approaches, district expectations for principal performance, and support provided to principals influence principals’ practice? 2) How well do the evaluations of principal practice predict school value-added results and school climate measures?
The studies were carried out in two mid-sized school districts that differed in geographic region, size, and student demographics. The districts were chosen for their diversity and because they had developed new standards-based evaluation approaches for principals. The standards-based approaches included rubrics with behavioral descriptions of multiple levels of performance on leadership standards, diverse data sources, and training for evaluators in the systems. These features appear to conform with Federal guidelines for the Race to the Top and Teacher Incentive Fund programs. Fourteen principals and seven principal evaluators were interviewed in each district to learn about evaluation procedures, evidence sources, perceptions of feedback utility and fairness, and district priorities for and support of principal performance. Evaluation ratings and value-added estimates of school productivity were obtained and analyzed.
We found that the districts did not clearly communicate the role evaluation would play in overall district and school improvement and accountability strategies. Further, complete implementation of standards-based principal evaluation did not occur in either district. Principal evaluators held multiple responsibilities and struggled to complete comprehensive evaluations. Principal evaluators at both sites also treated evaluation as primarily a management tool and secondarily as a way to get an accurate assessment of principal performance. Analysis of evaluation ratings in showed considerable tendency toward leniency. Consequently, evaluation ratings had relatively weak relationships with value-added estimates of school productivity. Relationships with climate measures were stronger, but still not large.
Although these systems were seen as an improvement over prior evaluation approaches in both districts for helping principals focus their instructional leadership performance, they were not adequate as implemented for high stakes personnel decisions given the restricted range of ratings, and variation in evaluator implementation. These results have implications for the use of principal performance evaluation ratings for high stakes decisions, including pay purposes. It would appear that without strong efforts to encourage measurement quality, standards-based principal evaluation ratings are not likely to provide a solid basis for pay differentiation.

Authors

• Tony Milanowski, Westat

• Steven M. Kimball, University of Wisconsin - Madison