Does Principal Evaluation Build Principals' Capacity as Instructional Leaders? Perspectives of Supervisors and Principals

• In Event: Filling a Critical Leadership Gap: Developing Principal Instructional Leadership Through Principal Supervision

Abstract

Objective
This paper examines how principal supervisors attempt to use evaluation to develop principals' leadership practices, and principals' perspectives on whether principal evaluation helps them build capacity as instructional leaders. We also investigate whether supervisors’ and principals’ experiences with principal evaluation vary based on school and district performance.

Theoretical Framework
The potential for evaluation policies to help principals improve is arguably shaped by both supervisors’ capacity and organizational context. Prior research demonstrates that “policies may precipitate or exacerbate organizational dynamics that undercut productivity” (Malen & Rice, 2004, p. 636). For example, in schools labeled as low-performing, high stakes evaluation policies may lead to higher levels of stress and patterns of accommodation that prevent principals from growing as instructional leaders (e.g., Newman et al., 2001).

Data Sources
We sampled 23 school districts in Connecticut, Michigan, and Tennessee that vary in urbanicity, student performance, and district principal evaluation policies. We purposefully selected small/medium enrollment districts (2,000 to 10,000 students) because much of the research on principal supervision focuses on large districts that arguably have greater central office capacity and do not reflect the reality of the vast majority of districts in the United States. We administered a survey to 62 principals (63% response rate) that inquired about experiences with principal evaluation. We interviewed 23 principal supervisors who evaluated principals (often the superintendent; 100% participation rate), and 76 principals (78% participation rate).

Methods
Using survey data, we generated descriptive statistics on principals’ perceptions about the processes and impact of evaluation. As a complement to these data, we coded the principal and supervisor interviews to capture descriptions of evaluation processes. We coded using inductive codes and deductive codes based on prior literature on principal evaluation (e.g., Davis & Hensley, 1999; Goldring et al., 2009; Sun & Youngs, 2009). We defined “high-performing” and “low-performing” as the highest and lowest school accountability categories, respectively, per each state’s department of education. To analyze whether supervisors’ and principals’ experiences varied by district and school performance, we generated matrices to test these propositions for the qualitative data.

Findings
Supervisors reported that they carried out all principal evaluation processes but did not view evaluation as their district’s most powerful lever to improve principals’ practice. Similarly, principals reported that evaluation was largely symbolic. Within these broad patterns, differences emerged, however. In lower-performing districts, superintendents described specific ways they used evaluation to spur improvements in principals’ practices. Similarly, superintendents described taking different approaches to evaluation with principals of higher- and lower-performing schools within their district.

Significance
Most states have overhauled principal evaluation in the past decade, yet few studies document how principal evaluation is implemented in more typical small and medium districts such as those in our sample. Moreover, few studies analyze the perspective of supervisors and principals or take a mixed methods approach. To address these gaps, our study illustrates how supervisors and principals in three diverse states understand and experience principal evaluation and lays the groundwork for future research on the implementation and effects of principal evaluation.

Authors

• Morgaen L. Donaldson, University of Connecticut - Storrs

• Madeline Mavrogordato, Michigan State University

• Peter A. Youngs, University of Virginia

• Shaun Michael Dougherty, Vanderbilt University