Recent calls to hold preparation programs accountable for outcomes have led states to develop and adopt preparation program accountability systems. A primary feature of these systems is a focus on outcomes such as placement rates, retention rates, and graduates’ effectiveness in improving K-12 student achievement. Yet, little research has examined the feasibility of employing such outcome measures, let alone the validity and reliability of the inherent judgments. This conceptual study reviews and makes conclusions about the appropriateness of using placement rates to evaluate principal-preparation programs based on theoretical analyses and empirical analysis of statewide placement data from Texas.
BathonJ.BlackW. (2011). Where do our graduates go? A five-year exploration of the regional distribution of principal preparation program graduates. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6(1), n1.
2.
BriggsK.CheneyG. R.DavisJ.MollK. (2013). Operating in the dark: What outdated state policies and data gaps mean for effective school leadership. Dallas, TX: Alliance to Reform Educational Leadership.
3.
CampbellC.GrossB. (2012). Principal concerns: Leadership data and strategies for states. Seattle: Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington.
4.
CaruthersF. A.ShulhaL. M.HopsonR. K. (2010). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
5.
CheneyG. R.DavisJ. (2011). Gateways to the principalship: State power to improve the quality of school leaders. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
6.
CoggshallJ. G.BivonaL.ReschlyD. J. (2012, August). Evaluating the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs for support and accountability. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
7.
DeAngelisK. J.O’ConnorN. K. (2012). Examining the pipeline into educational administration an analysis of applications and job offers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 468-505.
8.
FeuerM. J.FlodenR. E.ChudowskyN.AhnJ. (2013). Evaluation of teacher preparation programs: Purposes, methods, and policy options. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.
9.
FullerE. J.HollingworthL. (2014a). A bridge too far? Challenges in evaluating principal effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3), 466-499. doi:10.1177/0013161x-13506595
10.
FullerE. J.HollingworthL. (2014b, April). Evaluating principal preparation programs: Assessing the appropriateness of three accountability strategies. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
11.
FullerE. J.OrrM. T. (2006, November). Principal production, employment, and retention by type of preparation program. Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, San Antonio, TX.
12.
GatesS. M.RingelJ. S.SantibanezL.GuarinoC.Ghosh-DastidarB.BrownA. (2006). Mobility and turnover among school principals. Economics of Education Review, 25, 289-302.
13.
GoldhaberD.LiddleS. (2011). The gateway to the profession: Assessing teacher preparation programs based on student achievement (CEDR Working paper). Seattle: University of Washington.
14.
GoldhaberD.LiddleS.TheobaldR. (2013). The gateway to the profession: Assessing teacher preparation programs based on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 34, 29-44. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.01.011
15.
Kukla-AcevedoS.StreamsM. E.TomaE. (2012). Can a single performance metric do it all? A case study in education accountability. The American Review of Public Administration, 42, 303-319. doi:10.1177/0275074011399120
16.
LincoveJ. A.OsborneC.DillonA.MillsN. (2013). The politics and statistics of value-added modeling for accountability of teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(1), 24-38.
17.
MaasC. J.HoxJ. J. (2004). The influence of violations of assumptions on multilevel parameter estimates and their standard errors. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 46(3), 427-440.
18.
MihalyK.McCaffreyD.SassT. R.LockwoodJ. R. (2012). Where you come from or where you go? Distinguishing between school quality and the effectiveness of teacher preparation program graduates. Washington, DC: American Institutes of Research.
19.
New Leaders. (2013). Improving principal preparation: A review of current practices and recommendations for state action. New York, NY: Author.
20.
OrrM. T.RorrerA. K.YoungM. D. (n.d.). Developing evaluation evidence: A formative and summative evaluation planner for educational leadership preparation programs. Charlottesville, VA: University Council for Educational Administration.
21.
PapaF.Jr. (2007). Why do principals change schools? A multivariate analysis of principal retention. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6, 267-290.
22.
PapaF.Jr.BaxterI. A. (2005). Dispelling the myths and confirming the truths of the imminent shortage of principals: The case of New York state. Planning and Changing, 36, 217-234.
23.
PashiardisP.BrauckmannS. (2009). Evaluation of school principals. In LumbyJ.CrowG.PashiardisP. (Eds.), International handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders (pp. 263-279). New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
PortinB. S.FeldmanS.KnappM. S. (2006). Purposes, uses, and practices of leadership assessment in education. Seattle: University of Washington Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
25.
RiehlC.ByrdM. A. (1997). Gender differences among new recruits to school administration: Cautionary footnotes to an optimistic tale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 45-64. doi:10.3102/01623737019001045
26.
RyanK. (2002). Assessment validation in the context of high-stakes assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 7-15. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2002.tb00080.x
27.
SheltonS. (2012). Preparing a pipeline of effective principals. Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures.
