The Administrator Portfolio Appraisal System that this district imple mented addressed many of the concerns related to principal evaluation indicated in the research. Administrators found the system made appraisal relevant and personal and addressed the situational and com plex nature of their jobs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brown, G. and Irby, B.J.The Administrative Portfolio Development Institute: A Training Manual . Huntsville, Tex.: Sam Houston State University, 1996.
2.
—. The Principal Portfolio. Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Corwin Press, 1997.
3.
Brown, G.; Irby, B.J.; Buckner, K.; and Lammel, J.The Administrator Appraisal Systems Institute: A Training Manual. Reston, Va.: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1997.
4.
DePree, K.R. "Administration Evaluation: Problems, Process and Strategies." Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Association of School Administrators, Atlantic City, N.J., 1974.
5.
Harrison, W.C., and Peterson, K.D. "Complexities in the Evaluation of Principals: The Relationship Between Satisfaction with Evaluation Process, Criteria, and Sources of Information ." Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, Calif., 1987. ERIC Document No. ED 277131.
6.
Leithwood, K.A. "Using the Principal Profile To Assess Performance." Educational Leadership1(1987): 63-66.
7.
Lindahl, R.A. "Evaluating the Principal's Performance: An Essential Step in Promoting School Excellence." Education2(1987): 204-41.
8.
Natriello, G.; Deal, T.; Dornbusch, S.M., and Hong, M.A.Summary of the Recent Literature on the Evaluation of Principals, Teachers, and Students. (Occasional Paper No. 18). Stanford, Calif. : Stanford University, Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, 1977.
