How Should Principals Be Evaluated?

(Originally titled “Principal Evaluation from the Ground Up”)

“Principal evaluation, on the whole, does not differentiate among poor, average, good, and excellent principals,” says James Stronge (College of William and Mary) in this article in Educational Leadership, “nor is it growth-oriented or accountability based.” Here’s what he thinks is wrong with the way most principals are evaluated:

• Criteria and standards are not clearly communicated.
• Evaluators mostly overlook leadership behaviors that ensure rigorous curriculum and quality instruction.
• Instruments don’t discriminate among different levels of performance, the vast majority of principals are rated “Satisfactory”, and there are rarely consequences for mediocre or poor performance.
• Few principals get meaningful and timely feedback.
• Evaluations are usually based on instruments that are of unproven utility, psychometric properties, and accuracy and aren’t aligned with professional standards.
• This creates stress for principals because they don’t know where to focus their attention.
• The evaluation process doesn’t enhance principals’ motivation and improve their performance.

In addition, many principal evaluation protocols haven’t caught up to the standards era, in which principal evaluation has become virtually synonymous with school evaluation. 

Stronge, the author of a new book on principal evaluation (ASCD, 2013), believes school leaders should be assessed on a combination of research-based practices and student learning gains. What the principal knows, values, and does is important,” says Stronge, “but so is his or her ability to achieve specific, observable outcomes.” He proposes seven standards:

• Instructional leadership – This includes building and sustaining a robust vision of learning, sharing leadership with teachers, leading a learning community, and monitoring and supporting high-quality curriculum and instruction. 

• School climate – Effective principals focus on the involvement and support of all stakeholders, build positive relationships among all groups, and model and sustain trust. 

• Human resources leadership – “Effective principals understand that one of their most important responsibilities is the selection, induction, support, evaluation, and retention of high-quality staff members,” says Stronge. 

• Organizational management – This includes a safe and orderly environment, efficient maintenance of the campus, effective use of data and technology, and managing the budget. 

• Communication and community relations – This involves bringing all stakeholders together in service of students’ growth and welfare.

• Professionalism – Principals need to model ethical behavior, professional growth, and support of colleagues. 

• Student progress – Stronge argues that principals are key to orchestrating good teaching practices in classrooms, which in turn drive student achievement. What percent of a principal’s evaluation should be student achievement gains? A substantial proportion, he believes, but not necessarily the 50 percent figure that some districts and states are using or considering. 

How can superintendents or their designees evaluate principals on these seven standards? “We must begin by providing a comprehensive, authentic portrait of the principal’s work through multiple data sources,” says Stronge. These include self-evaluation, goal-setting, observations and school-site visits, document logs, and surveys. The focus of all the data should be support and improvement. To that end, Stronge presents these principles:

• Numbers alone don’t matter. “Simply applying a numerical score to a principal evaluation is sterile,” he says. 
• Evaluation should be designed for all principals, not the 3-5 percent who are ineffective. We must deal with failing principals, says Stronge, but evaluation systems must provide valid, constructive feedback to all.
• Evaluation must balance growth and accountability. “Growth without accountability can easily become merely advice,” says Stronge. “Accountability without growth is pointless.” 

“Principal Evaluation from the Ground Up” by James Stronge in Educational Leadership, April 2013 (Vol. 70, #7, p. 60-65), www.ascd.org); Stronge is at jhstro@wm.edu.  

From the Marshall Memo #481