progress standard is so highly valued
by policymakers, legislators, and the
general public that it alone has come
to encompass as much as 50 percent
of the total evaluation of a principal in
some states and districts—even though
various studies point to the principal’s influence as accounting for about
10 percent or less of the variability in
student learning (Waters, Marzano, &
McNulty, 2003).
Yet the 50 percent figure is not
without some basis in reality. Some
researchers—including John Hattie
(2008)—estimate that teacher behaviors
account for as much as 30 percent
of student learning. And who hires,
inducts, supports, and evaluates
teachers? Of course, it’s the principal.
Thus, the principal’s effect on student
learning in the school is far greater
than her or his own direct influence.
I think it safe to surmise that schools
cannot rise above the quality of their
principals. Moreover, if teachers are
held accountable for student learning—
with 30–50 percent of their evaluations
based on student learning gains—then it
is fair and reasonable to hold principals
similarly accountable.
Because the connection between principal quality and student achievement
isn’t an exact science—but is rather
based on some blend of evidence,
policy, public opinion, and politics—I
think we may see this 50 percent figure
refined over time. Recent findings
from a large-scale, three-year study by
the MET project recommended that
33–50 percent of teacher evaluation be
based on measures of student progress
(Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
2013). I suspect that we will see principal evaluation follow this same pattern
and eventually settle into a percentage
that is equivalent to that of teachers—
a substantial portion of the principal’s evaluation, but not necessarily
50 percent.
Applying the Principal
Evaluation Standards
How can we accurately measure the
seven research-based standards for principal performance discussed here and
use the results for ongoing principal and
school improvement? We must begin by
providing a comprehensive, authentic
portrait of the principal’s work through
multiple data sources.
Documenting Principal Performance
Valid, fair principal evaluation systems
use multifaceted sources of information to document job performance,
including self-evaluation, observations
and school site visits, document logs,
surveys, and goal setting.
No single source or assessment
method can adequately capture the
complexities of a school leader’s work.
The proper use of multiple data sources
can dramatically improve the usefulness
of the evaluation system (for example,
by providing broader and more diverse
feedback). It also enhances the validity
and reliability of the process, providing
a more defensible basis for evaluation
decisions.
Using Evaluation Results for Growth
and Accountability
Once these multiple data sources are
identified and the information is collected and analyzed, effective principal
evaluation systems use the results to
focus on improvement. Supporting
principals is not only essential to the
success of schools but also fair to the
principals themselves.
To ensure that evaluation is a value-driven and growth-oriented learning
process, I suggest organizing the
practice around a set of guiding tenets,
including the following:
Numbers alone don’t matter. Simply
applying a numerical score to principal
evaluation is sterile. The value in evaluation will come from what we do with
the results.
Evaluation is designed for 100 percent of
principals, not the 3–5 percent who may be
failing. Without a doubt, we must deal
with ineffective principals. However,
evaluation is best when we grow and
support all principals. This means
that evaluation should be designed to
provide valid, constructive feedback for
the vast majority of capable, competent,
committed principals in our schools.
Evaluation must balance growth and
accountability. Some claim that growth
and accountability are incompatible.
I disagree. In fact, unless the two are
inextricably tied, they tend not to work
well. Growth without accountability can
easily become merely advice; accountability without growth is pointless.
Where Do We Go from Here?
Principal evaluation systems that reflect
both professional growth and accountability are not only desirable but also