A Study of How Secondary School Principals in Minnesota Perceive the Evaluation of Their Performance

Abstract

The purpose for this study was to ascertain the perceptions principals of public secondary schools in Minnesota have in relation to the evaluation of their job performance. Responding principals reported that past evaluations have been fair and consistent but have questioned their value with regard to professional growth. When asked if student achievement data should be included in the evaluation process, 88.7% of respondents agreed. However, when asked if the inclusion of student achievement data should make up 35% of their performance rating as mandated by state statute, 75.8% of respondents supported a lower percentage.

Keywords

principal evaluation secondary school principals principal perceptions assessment of performance Minnesota secondary school principals

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amoroso

Knuth

Smith

Smokrovich

Storti

P. F.

Stueve

(2012, January). In support of a principal evaluation process in accordance with Minnesota statute 2010, Section 123B.147. Retrieved from http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Welcome/AdvBCT/PrincEvalWorkGroup/

Babo

(2009). The ISLLC standards’ “footprints” and principal evaluation: A national study of school superintendents. Retrieved from http://cnx.org/content/m33273/1.3/

Catano

Stronge

J. H.

(2006). What are principals expected to do? Congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. NASSP Bulletin, 90, 221-237. doi:10.1177/0192636506292211

Clifford

Behrstock-Sherratt

Fetters

(2012). The ripple effect: A synthesis of research on principal influence to inform performance evaluation design. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Clifford

Hansen

U. J.

Wraight

(2012). A practical guide to designing comprehensive principal evaluation systems: A tool to assist in the development of principal evaluation systems. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality.

Clifford

Ross

(2012). Rethinking principal evaluation: A new paradigm informed by research and practice. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Retrieved from www.nassp.org/Content/158/eval_report.pdf

Davis

Kearney

Sanders

Thomas

Leon

(2011). The policies and practices of principal evaluation: A review of the literature. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved from http://www.schoolsmovingup.net/effectiveprincipals

Derrington

M. L.

Sharratt

(2008). Evaluation of school principals using Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards. AASA: Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 5(3), 20-29.

Goldring

Cravens

X. C.

Murphy

Porter

A. C.

Elliott

S. N.

Carson

(2009). The evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban districts assess leadership? Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 19-39.

10.

Guilfoyle

(2013). Principal evaluation and professional growth. Policy Priorities, 19(2), 1-7.

11.

Jacques

Clifford

Hornung

(2012). State policies on principal evaluation: Trends in a changing landscape. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality.

12.

Kaplan

L. S.

Owings

W. A.

Nunnery

(2005). Principal quality: A Virginia study connecting Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium standards with student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(643), 28-44.

13.

Kimball

S. M.

Heneman

H. G.

III Milanowski

(2007). Performance evaluation and compensation for public school principals: Results from a national survey. ERS Spectrum, 25(4), 11-21.

14.

Kimball

S. M.

Milanowski

McKinney

S. A.

(2009). Assessing the promise of standards-based performance evaluation for principals: Results from a randomized trial. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8, 233-263.

15.

Lashway

(2003). Improving principal evaluation. ERIC Digest (172). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED482347.pdf

16.

Leithwood

Louis

K. S.

Anderson

Wahlstrom

(2004). How leadership influences student learning: A review of research for the Learning from Leadership Project. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.

17.

Louis

K. S.

Leithwood

Wahlstrom

K. L.

Anderson

S. E.

(2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.

18.

Marzano

Waters

McNulty

(2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Department.

19.

Mattson Almanzan

Sanders

Kearney

(2011). How six states are implementing principal evaluation systems. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

20.

McAdams

R. P.

Barilla

M. A.

(2003). Theory and practice in performance appraisal of school administrators. Research for Educational Reform, 8(1), 19-35.

21.

Murphy

(2005). Unpacking the foundations of ISLLC standards and addressing concerns in the academic community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 154-191.

22.

Portin

B. S.

(2009). Assessing the effectiveness of school leaders: New directions and new processes. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.

23.

Portin

B. S.

Feldman

Knapp

M. S.

(2006). Purposes, uses, and practices of leadership assessment in education. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.

24.

Principal Evaluation, Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes, Minnesota § 123B.147 (2013).

25.

Reeves

D. B.

(2004). Evaluating administrators. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 52-58.

26.

Reeves

D. B.

(2009). Assessing educational leaders: Evaluating performance for improved individual and organizational results (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

27.

Samuels

C. A.

(2011). Principals’ performance reviews are getting a fresh look: Two membership groups are among those pushing changes. Education Week, 30(37), 14.

28.

Sanders

N. M.

Kearney

K. M.

(Eds.). (2008). Performance expectations and indicators for education leaders: An ISLLC-based guide to implementing leader standards and a companion guide to the educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Peformance_Indicators_2008.pdf

29.

Slavin

R.E.

(2007). Educational research in an age of accountability. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

30.

Spanneut

Tobin

Ayers

(2012). Identifying the professional development needs of public school principals based on the interstate school leader licensure consortium standards. NASSP Bulletin, 96(1), 67-88. doi:10.1177/0192636512439230

31.

Stine

D. O.

(2001, April). Developing an evaluation system to improve principal performance and accountability. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

32.

Swaggert

(2012). A study of secondary school principal job satisfaction in Minnesota (Doctoral dissertation, St. Cloud State University).

33.

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Race to the top fund. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/awards.html

34.

Valentine

J. W.

Prater

(2011). Instructional, transformational, and managerial leadership and student achievement: High school principals make a difference. NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), 5-30. doi:10.1177/0192636511404062