WASSP_Home_files/WASSP 2015 PPT Hvidston, Range, McKim

David Hvidston, Bret Range,and Courtney McKim, University of Wyoming
Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals
Lander, WY
January 2015
Past principal evaluation reform models have not been very
effective (Murphy, Hallinger, & Peterson, 1985; Stronge, 2013)
There exists uncertainness regarding principal standards and
performance expectations from the perspective of the principal
(Reeves, 2009)
This focus on instructional leadership is the second most
important factor (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Whalstrom, 2004)
With No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) and Race to the Top
(RTTT, 2009), the demonstration of students’ academic
performance is critical
34 states have passed legislation requiring new principal
evaluations systems with rigorous outcomes emphasizing student
performance data (Jacques, Clifford, & Hornung, 2012)
Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles - As of 2012-2013
school year 40 – 50 % of a principals’ evaluation
is based on connecting student achievement to
principal evaluation
 Washington and Minnesota require student
achievement to account for 35 % of a principals’
 Louisiana and Colorado require 50%
 Some evaluations require climate surveys from
teachers, parents, or 360 view evaluations
 95,000 principals compared to 3.5 million
Leader Evaluations
Requires: Superintendents, principals, and
other district or school leaders to be
evaluated yearly
Superintendent reports to their board
identifying all school and district leaders
whose performance is
 in need of improvement or ineffective
 requires summary of mentoring and PD made
The participants were 266 Principals
82 principals responded (response rate of
On-line survey asking two open-ended
Process included coding and re-coding until
themes emerged
Two research questions:
 How would you describe the ideal principal
 How does your principal evaluation and
supervisory feedback improve your performance
as a leader?
The emerging themes for the first research
 Superintendent Performance
 Principal Evaluation Components
The emerging themes for the second
research question
 Specific Feedback Needs
 Reflective Feedback
Superintendents need to be competent and
“highly trained in supervision and cognitive
 Capability of the superintendent was a critical
factor , “…an evaluation tool is only as good as
the person giving it”
 Superintendent should have “a clear
understanding of the evaluation instrument and
 “On-going dialogue” about “building the best
Identified Responsibilities
 “exemplars as examples of best practice.”
 or by using a rubric based on Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards or Midcontinent Research for Education and Learning
(MCREL) standards
 “complete alignment with the job description and
Professional Growth
 evaluation based on their continuous improvement
“strongly rooted in a growth model rather than a
compliance model”
 “an assessment of where you are and how to get
 One principal described professional development as
necessary for growth as a principal and described
having to find professional development opportunities
without district support.
Student Achievement
 “high emphasis on setting reasonable achievement
and growth targets and those targets being met”
 Goals should be measured by progress and the
presentation of “artifacts, survey data, and student
achievement data”
 Results from academic measures included using the
ACT, state assessments, and Measured Academic
Progress (MAP) assessments to demonstrate student
An Instructional Leadership Focus
 The ideal evaluation should be “ based upon the
efforts to improve instruction within the school”
 Teacher effectiveness and student growth was
described as being critical components for the
demonstration of instructional leadership
 “distinguish between those areas that are
managerial and those that are instructional
 Student Achievement is a critical component
“[the performance evaluation] gives me
feedback which is necessary to keep current and
grow in this profession”
 Feedback is “direct” and “allows me to see
opportunities for improvement and to seek ways
to improve”
 “honest” as well as “helpful and insightful”
 “guide professional development” and “affirms
the good work”
 “The evaluation nothing, the feedback
 Feedback with “an emphasis on genuine
stakeholder feedback”
“falls short…generally occurring three – six
months after the fact”
 “my evaluator sees me about one time per year”
 “It does not”
 “I am not sure that it has improved my
 “In my view, the informal day-to-day
discussions seem to have a much greater impact
that the formal summative evaluation”
 “met regularly (monthly) with my direct
supervisor to review my goals and my individual
progress towards meeting them”
Self-directed feedback or self-reflection
 …as being “self –directed” and that “self-
reflection is of most value”
 “ I am self-motivated and I improve my
performance by staying informed on important
issues and continuing to learn with my faculty”
 A principal discounted the effect of feedback as “
very little [regarding improving performance as a
leader] self-reflection is of most value”
Feedback connected to an evaluation
 “self – assesses prior to the evaluation meeting with
my superintendent…we discuss the commonalities
and differences in my self-assessment and his
evaluation of me. As we discuss we come to a
common rating”
 The reflective feedback is generated through a
collaborative process and is communicated through a
professional “conversation”
 One principal established a connection between
reflection and feedback, “Feedback leads to reflection
which leads to growth as a school leader”
Feedback following an evaluation meeting
 “It causes me to reflect on my practice and work on
refining areas that could use more attention”
 Feedback “ helps me think about what I need to be
doing better [to] facilitate learning in my buildings”
 A principal described reflective feedback as; “It helps
me see myself through a different set of eyes.
Sometimes that means getting through blind spots
that I have about myself”
 “The feedback provided helps to compliment and
clarify what the superintendent sees me doing…”
Principals consistently referred to the performance of
the superintendent or primary supervisor as an
important in the evaluation of the principals
 Principals’ identified four components regarding their
ideal evaluation including: identified responsibilities,
professional growth, student achievement, and an
instructional leadership focus
 Principals were unequivocal regarding the importance
of feedback in an ideal evaluation
 Superintendent preparation – might inform potential
Jacques, C., Clifford, M. & Hornung, K. (2012). State policies on principal evaluation: Trends in a
changing landscape. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher
Leithwood, K., Louis, K., S., Anderson, S., & Whalstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How
leadership influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Murphy, J., Hallinger, P. & Peterson, K. D. (1985). Supervising and evaluating principals:
Lessons from effective districts. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 78-82
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).94.
Race to the top program executive summary (2009). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education. Author.
Reeves, D. B. (2009). Assessing educational leaders: Evaluating performance for improved
individual and organizational results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Stronge, J. H., (2013). Principal evaluation from the ground up. Educational Leadership, (70)7,

similar documents