Table of Contents
Condon, E. J., III. (2009). Principal evaluation and student achievement: A study of public elementary schools in Du- Page, Will, and Lake Counties, Illinois. PhD dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago.
Comments: This instrument consists of 10 items (the first matrix) that refer to various evaluative methods that could be used to formally evaluate principal performance. There are eleven items (the second matrix) that refer to various objectives of evaluation that could be achieved through the evaluation process. In addition, there are four open-ended questions. The first open-ended question asks principals to share their beliefs about evaluation and principal performance. The second open-ended question asks principals to share their beliefs about evaluation and their own professional development. The third open-ended question asks principals to share their beliefs about the impact of principal evaluation on pupil performance. The fourth open-ended question asks principals about their beliefs regarding the impact of principal evaluation on their own professional development.
Sample: The sample consisted of 130 K–8 public school principals. Detailed demographic information is provided.
Reliability: The alpha coefficient (Cronbach) for the first matrix is 0.70. The alpha coefficient (Cronbach) for the second matrix is 0.88. Inter-rater reliability for the four open-ended questions is established by using the Kappa Measure of Agreement.
Validity: Content validity was established in a three-step approach. The dissertation committee provided input regarding the wording of the instrument questions in relation to the instrument constructs. The instrument was pretested with a small group of respondents. Finally, the instrument was piloted with an independent group of respondents who were not in the instrument participation group, but had like backgrounds.
Data Analysis: Descriptive statistics were used for the two matrices. Means and standard deviations are provided as well as information about skewness and kurtosis. In addition, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were included.
Catano, N., and Stronge, J. (2006). What are principals expected to do?: Congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. National Association of Secondary Schools Principals Bulletin, 90:221–37.
Kaplan, L. S., Owings, W. A., and Nunnery, J. (2005). Principal quality: A Virginia study connecting interstate school leaders licensure consortium standards with student achievement. National Association of Secondary Schools Principals Bulletin, 89(643):28–44.
Kearney, K. (2005). Guiding improvements in principal performance. Leadership, 35:18–21.
Thomas, D. W., Holdaway, E. A., and Ward, K. L. (2000). Policies and practices involved in the evaluation of school principals. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14:215–40.
Principal Evaluation Instrument
To what extent, if at all, have the following methods been used to formally evaluate your performance as principal?
- Narrative self-evaluation
- Checklist/rating system
- Supervisor observation
- Narrative evaluation by supervisor
- Data-based evaluation
- Survey data from teachers, parents, or students
- Peer supervision/review
- Anecdotal evidence.
- Perception feedback from stakeholders
Scoring: A seven-point scale ranging from Not At All = 1 to Very Much = 7. Scores range from a low of 10 to a high of 70.
To what extent, if at all, do you perceive principal evaluation accomplishing the following objectives?
- Satisfy district accountability requirements
- Increase standardized assessment scores
- Provide principals with professional growth
- Document substandard principal performance
- Identify the needs for principal professional development
- Provide incentive for performance improvement
- Reward exemplary principal performance
- Ensure adherence to policies and procedures
- Support the maintenance of the instructional program
- Improve pupil achievement
- Foster positive school climate
Scoring: A seven-point scale ranging from Not At All = 1 to Very Much = 7. Scores range from a low of 11 to a high of 77.
- What effect, if any, has your experience with evaluation had on your beliefs about principal performance? Please explain.
- What effect, if any, has your experience with evaluation had on your beliefs about your own professional development? Please explain.
- Do you believe that the principal evaluation process has an impact on pupil performance? Please explain.
- Do you believe that the principal evaluation process has an impact on your own professional development? Please explain.