Principal Evaluation under the Elementary and Secondary Every Student Succeeds Act: A Comprehensive Policy Review

Abstract

A growing body of research recognizes the critical role of the school principal, demonstrating that school principals’ effects on student outcomes are second only to those of teachers. Yet policy makers have often paid little attention to principals, choosing instead to focus policy reform on teachers. In the last decade, this pattern has shifted somewhat. Federal policies such as Race to the Top (RTTT) and Elementary and Secondary Education Act waivers emphasized principal quality and prompted many states to overhaul principal evaluation as a means to develop principals’ leadership practices and hold them accountable for the performance of their schools. The development and dissemination of principal evaluation policies has proceeded rapidly, however, it is unclear whether focusing on principal evaluation has targeted the most impactful policy lever. In this policy brief, we describe where policy makers have placed their bets in post-RTTT principal evaluation systems and comment on the wisdom of these wagers. We describe the degree to which principal evaluation components, processes, and consequences vary across the fifty states and the District of Columbia, and review evidence on which aspects of principal evaluation policies are most likely to improve principals’ practice and hold them accountable.

Quality or Control: High-Needs Principals’ Perceptions of a PSEL-Based Evaluation System

“…The role of principal supervisors has gained recent prominence and this study contributes to that conversation (e.g., Donaldson et al, 2021). While the HNSPs in our study questioned the fit and fairness of the evaluation rubric and system, all of the respondents indicated that they experienced positive relationships with their principal supervisors, which were marked by trust and communication.…”

Match or Mismatch? Assistant Principals’ Roles and Their Perceptions of the Evaluation System

“…The evaluation system has both formative and summative purposes, such as making personnel decisions, providing feedback for improvement and growth, and improving student outcomes (Fuller et al, 2015). The use of evaluation feedback for multiple purposes is aligned with recent research on principal supervision that suggests that both supervision and evaluation can be intertwined in practice through improvement cycles including goal setting and pre-observation conferences, data collection, ongoing feedback meetings, and end-of-year conferencing (Derrington & Sanders, 2011; Donaldson et al, 2020; Hvidston et al, 2018; Rubin et al, 2021).…”

The Relationship Between Measures of Preservice Principal Practice and Future Principal Job Performance

“…More recently, the multidimensional conception of school leadership has been integrated into large-scale third-party assessments of school leadership. These assessments are a response to a federal and state policy landscape that has increasingly tied school and district funding to evaluation of both teachers and principals, leading to broader adoption of evaluation systems in K-12 schools and districts (Donaldson et al, 2021;Superville, 2014). Various provisions of ESSA permit the allocation of grant funds for activities supporting principals and other school leaders, as well as for measuring teacher and principal effectiveness (Haller et al, 2016).…”

“…Race to the Top encouraged teacher and principal evaluation, and six states implemented full principal evaluation systems by the 2012-2013 school year (when teacher quality funding expanded to include school leader evaluation), providing useful context for analyzing their benefits and consequences. A review of principal evaluations notes that all states now require that principals receive a summative rating based on multiple measures of performance and most states require districts to assign one of four performance ratings, with clear consequences to performing below standard (Donaldson et al, 2021). A 2015 study reported that 67% of states allowed, recommended, or mandated that the results be used in making personnel decisions (Fuller et al, 2015).…”