^[1]

Studies show that principals have a strong effect on school culture, teacher quality and satisfaction, and policy implementation—but existing principal evaluation systems too often lack transparency and consistency.

Recent research shows that good principals in K-12 schools can create dramatic improvement, particularly in the lowest performing schools—but the consistency, fairness, and value of current principal evaluation practices are questionable.

An overview of current research on principal evaluation, introduced July 14 at a National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) conference, provides guidance to state and district efforts to evaluate principals more effectively.

Despite the potential for successful principal evaluations to improve schools, improvements in principal evaluation systems are “long overdue,” according to the report “Designing Principal Evaluations Systems: Research to Guide Decision...^[2]” by co-authors Matthew Clifford, senior research scientist at the American Institutes of Research (AIR), and Steven Ross, professor of education at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Research and Reform in Education, in collaboration with NAESP.

“It’s important now [to develop better evaluation systems], because with Race to the Top (RTTT) and other evaluation initiatives, evaluation of teachers and principals have become more in the public eye,” Ross said.

According to the report, previous studies show that principals have a strong effect on school culture, teacher quality and satisfaction, and policy implementation, but existing principal evaluation systems too often lack transparency and consistency.

“There’s a lot of accountability without the recognition that people need to develop,” Clifford said. “Principals are increasingly being held accountable, but past principal evaluation wasn’t always tied to principal development and wasn’t always tied to principal feedback.”

Clifford said that constructive evaluation to help principals improve is key in light of recent federal policies such as RTTT and No Child Left Behind (NCLB), trends towards incentive pay ^[3], and School Improvement Grants that replace principals deemed ineffective ^[4].

“Our goal is to take advantage of [the] growing focus on teacher evaluation—we’re already beginning to see that,” said Gail Connelly, executive director of NAESP. “It’s just a matter of time before that type of principal evaluation will naturally follow.”

Ross said there is not enough research about principal evaluation, and while the research that does exist is valuable, work such as the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS): Standar... ^[5] tends to focus on recognizing and rewarding highly effective “master” principals.

“We are trying to create distinct measures and an integrated system so that novice principals and advanced, but not necessarily ‘master,’ principals can also get good feedback,” Clifford said.

While existing standards themselves are reasonable, Ross said, translating them into evaluation strategies can be problematic.

“Multiple measures of principal performance are needed in order to improve schools, teaching quality, student achievement ^[6], and of course, their own practice,” Clifford said.

According to Clifford, good evaluation strategies should address four main aspects of a principal’s performance: effectiveness as a curriculum and instructional leader; school climate factors such as teacher working condition and parent attitudes; student achievement; and observational data such as how a principal manages teacher meetings.

The report lists questions that should be considered by researchers and policy makers seeking to redesign principal evaluation systems, such as how, when, and why principals should be evaluated. More specific questions ask about differences among principals with varying levels of expertise, or leading at different types of schools.

The executive summaries released by Clifford and Ross show “what the playing field is like” in terms of what studies and standards exist, Ross said. “The next step is to review more literature in detail and meet practitioners to come up with more concrete suggestions for the direction we should go in.”

Clifford said that he and Ross expect to release a fuller report in late September or early October. This report will inform the Principal Evaluation Project ^[7], which was launched July as a partnership between NAESP and the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP).

Using research from this recent report as a springboard, a committee jointly sponsored by the two associations will develop guidelines for more effective principal evaluation. Over a five- to eight-month period, about 20 practitioners—mostly K-12 principals, as well as facilitators from Johns Hopkins and AIR—will brainstorm through discussion threads and gather for several intensive in-person meetings.

NAESP’s Connelly said the new guidelines will build on current standards by drawing upon Clifford and Ross’s report, as well as previous research by the sponsoring committees such as “Leading Learning Communities” by NAESP ^[8] and “Breaking Ranks” by NASSP ^[9].

The guidelines then will be vetted by stakeholder groups such as the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Connelly said she hopes involving these stakeholder groups in the design of the guidelines will expedite redesign of principal evaluation systems.

“The most important reason for us to engage in this work is to play an active role in creating—for the first time ever—comprehensive, fair guidelines and influencing at not only the policy, but also the practitioner level,” said Connelly.

Co-author Ross said he hopes the guidelines will inspire district and state systems to make improvements that “can ripple up to the federal level, and should.”

“Changes in a principal evaluation system can start with a superintendent and a few people in a meeting,” Ross said.