Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

David Hvidston, Bret Range,and Courtney McKim, University of Wyoming Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals Lander, WY January 2015.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "David Hvidston, Bret Range,and Courtney McKim, University of Wyoming Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals Lander, WY January 2015."— Presentation transcript:

1 David Hvidston, Bret Range,and Courtney McKim, University of Wyoming Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals Lander, WY January 2015

2  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)

3  Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles - As of 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’ evaluation  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 teachers

4  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 available

5  The participants were 266 Principals  82 principals responded (response rate of 34%)  On-line survey asking two open-ended questions  Process included coding and re-coding until themes emerged

6  Two research questions:  How would you describe the ideal principal evaluation?  How does your principal evaluation and supervisory feedback improve your performance as a leader?

7  The emerging themes for the first research question  Superintendent Performance  Principal Evaluation Components  The emerging themes for the second research question  Specific Feedback Needs  Reflective Feedback

8  Superintendents need to be competent and “highly trained in supervision and cognitive coaching”  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 components”  “On-going dialogue” about “building the best principal”

9  Identified Responsibilities  “exemplars as examples of best practice.”  or by using a rubric based on Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards or Mid- continent Research for Education and Learning (MCREL) standards  “complete alignment with the job description and responsibilities”

10  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 better”  One principal described professional development as necessary for growth as a principal and described having to find professional development opportunities without district support.

11  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 achievement

12  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 leadership”  Student Achievement is a critical component

13  “[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 everything”  Feedback with “an emphasis on genuine stakeholder feedback”

14  “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 performance”  “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”

15  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”

16  Feedback connected to an evaluation conference  “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”

17  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…”

18  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 practice

19 References Jacques, C., Clifford, M. & Hornung, K. (2012). State policies on principal evaluation: Trends in a changing landscape. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. 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), No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No , 115 Stat (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,


Download ppt "David Hvidston, Bret Range,and Courtney McKim, University of Wyoming Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals Lander, WY January 2015."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google