Principal Evaluation in the United States: A National Review of State Statutes and Regulations Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 10/16/2019 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 3/3/2020 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 3/4/2020 education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 28 Number 143 September 28, 2020 ISSN 1068-2341 Principal Evaluation in the United States: A National Review of State Statutes and Regulations Sarah R. Nielsen & Alyson L. Lavigne Utah State University United States Citation: Nielsen, S. R., & Lavigne, A. L. (2020). Principal evaluation in the United States: A national review of state statutes and regulations. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(143). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5097 Abstract: The growing recognition of how much principals matter for student learning and how they make a difference has fueled the need to ensure that effective principals are leading every school. One way to achieve this is through principal evaluation, which has experienced significant changes in the last decade. We conducted a national exploratory study (50 states) to document the trends in and provide an illustration of the current situation of states’ principal evaluation policies and practices. Using literature-based themes, our analysis of state statutes and regulations revealed that a majority of states have policies requiring at least one literature-based element. Only four (8%) states had statutes and/or regulations regarding all elements of principal evaluation that have been noted in the literature. Student achievement measures were the most common component—required in 66% of states. In addition, most states required principal evaluators to be trained and principals to be evaluated annually. We propose that future research focuses on the validity and reliability of measures and models used for principal evaluation—two aspects rarely addressed in principal evaluation policies—to ensure principal performance is meeting the needs of students, teachers, and schools. Keywords: principal evaluation; administrator evaluation; educational policy; supervision http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5097 Principal Evaluation in the United States 2 Evaluación principal en los Estados Unidos: Una revisión nacional de los estatutos y regulaciones estatales Resumen: El creciente reconocimiento de cuánto importan los directores para el aprendizaje de los estudiantes y cómo marcan la diferencia ha alimentado la necesidad de garantizar que los directores eficaces dirijan todas las escuelas. Una forma de lograrlo es a través de la evaluación principal, que ha experimentado cambios importantes en la última década. Realizamos un estudio exploratorio nacional (50 estados) para documentar las tendencias y proporcionar una ilustración de la situación actual de las principales políticas y prácticas de evaluación de los estados. Usando temas basados en la literatura, nuestro análisis de los estatutos y regulaciones estatales reveló que la mayoría de los estados tienen políticas que requieren al menos un elemento basado en la literatura. Solo cuatro (8%) estados tenían estatutos y / o regulaciones con respecto a todos los elementos de la evaluación principal que se han señalado en la literatura. Las medidas de rendimiento estudiantil fueron el componente más común, requerido en el 66% de los estados. Además, la mayoría de los estados exigían que los evaluadores principales fueran capacitados y que los directores debían ser evaluados anualmente. Proponemos que la investigación futura se concentre en la validez y confiabilidad de las medidas y modelos usados para la evaluación del director — dos aspectos que rara vez se abordan en las políticas de evaluación del director — para asegurar que el desempeño del director satisfaga las necesidades de los estudiantes, maestros y escuelas. Palabras clave: evaluación principal; evaluación del administrador; política educativa; supervision Avaliação principal nos Estados Unidos: Uma revisão nacional dos estatutos e regulamentos estaduais Resumo: O crescente reconhecimento de quanto os diretores são importantes para o aprendizado dos alunos e como eles fazem a diferença alimentou a necessidade de garantir que diretores eficazes conduzam todas as escolas. Uma maneira de conseguir isso é por meio da avaliação principal, que passou por mudanças significativas na última década. Conduzimos um estudo exploratório nacional (50 estados) para documentar as tendências e fornecer uma ilustração da situação atual das principais políticas e práticas de avaliação dos estados. Usando temas baseados na literatura, nossa análise dos estatutos e regulamentos estaduais revelou que a maioria dos estados tem políticas que exigem pelo menos um elemento baseado na literatura. Apenas quatro (8%) estados tinham estatutos e / ou regulamentos relativos a todos os elementos de avaliação principal que foram observados na literatura. As medidas de aproveitamento dos alunos foram o componente mais comum - exigido em 66% dos estados. Além disso, a maioria dos estados exigia que os avaliadores principais fossem treinados, e que os diretores fossem avaliados anualmente. Propomos que pesquisas futuras se concentrem na validade e confiabilidade das medidas e modelos usados para a avaliação dos diretores - dois aspectos raramente abordados nas políticas de avaliação dos diretores - para garantir que o desempenho dos diretores atenda às necessidades dos alunos, professores e escolas. Palavras-chave: avaliação principal; avaliação do administrador; política educacional; supervisão Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 3 Introduction Research demonstrates that principals hold an essential position within schools (Babo & Ramaswami, 2011; Fullan, 2014; Leithwood et al., 2004; Wallace Foundation, 2013). Their responsibilities span all facets of the school, from student achievement to lunch rooms and teacher effectiveness to building maintenance (Ch et al., 2017). Ingrained in every fiber of the school, principals can have great impact on school outcomes, results, and reputation (Garza et al., 2014; Leithwood et al., 2004) when they attract, retain, and support effective teachers and create working conditions that foster teacher success (Boyd et al., 2011; Ladd, 2009; see Marzano et al., 2005, for a comprehensive review). As such, principals have been identified in research as second only to teachers in terms of the in-school variables that matter most for student learning (Leithwood et al., 2004). Effective principals are especially important in schools that have been identified as struggling, such as turnaround schools (Leithwood et al., 2004). The growing awareness of how much principals matter underscores the importance of having qualified and effective principals in each school. One way that districts and states ensure good principals are in the schools is through principal evaluation: “Principal evaluation has been variously described as (a) holding principals accountable for the performance of students and faculty, as well as their own performance, (b) determining the effectiveness of principal practice, or (c) distinguishing between effective and ineffective principals” (Amsterdam et al., 2003, p. 222). Principal evaluation has also been identified as a tool for professional growth, especially when it includes effective feedback, facilitates adult and group learning, and emphasizes continuous improvement (Micheaux & Parvin, 2018). Thus, the purpose of principal evaluation has been described as both summative and formative in nature (Pashiardis & Brauckmann, 2008). With the above considerations in mind, we conduct an exploratory study to examine what evaluation policies states have put in place to hold principals accountable and determine their effectiveness (Amsterdam et al., 2003). We first provide a brief history of principal evaluation in the United States including a review of principal evaluation items (hereafter referred to as principal evaluation elements) in empirical studies. We collected state statutory and regulatory policies regarding principal or administrative evaluations from state legislatures and state school boards. We examined these policies to determine whether the identified principal evaluation elements from the literature were included and to what degree. The results of this analysis are given, followed by a discussion of our findings that focuses on the implications of the absence or presence of various principal evaluation elements for principals, school districts, and policymakers. Principal Evaluation in the United States: A Brief History In the United States, principal accountability has received significant attention in recent years as educator evaluation has dominated the last decade of education reform, particularly through the Race to the Top (RTTT) initiative which was launched in 20091. From a policy perspective, the evaluation of principals, who are the second most important in-school factor in student achievement relative to and have leadership over teachers, have therefore been perceived as one lever for school improvement in its historical and dominant purpose of driving personnel decisions such as tenure, placement, promotion, compensation, and dismissal, but also for continuous improvement of 1 While RTTT was broadly focused on innovation, it did prompt sweeping changes to teacher evaluation. Only 18 states were awarded RTTT dollars, however, nearly all states submitted applications and made significant changes to their teacher evaluation systems, with the most salient change being the addition of student achievement as a significant measure (Howell, 2015; National Council on Teacher Quality, 2017). Principal Evaluation in the United States 4 principal practice (National Conference of State Legislatures [NCLS], 2013). Broadly, RTTT encouraged evaluations that were based, in significant part, on student achievement. Principal evaluation, thus, was likely a function of the ripple effect of holding teachers accountable for student learning and new statistical procedures that purported to isolate the value that an individual teacher adds to their students’ learning (Lavigne & Good, 2015). Furthermore, the push for more rigorous principal evaluations occurred in conjunction with findings from research which suggested that principal evaluations were loosely or not at all aligned to standards and evidence (Goldring et al., 2009), such as the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders by the National Policy Board of Educational Administration (2020), and professional development or school improvement goals (Portin et al., 2006). Research also suggested that principals perceived their evaluations as perfunctory (Portin et al., 2006), inconsistent (Thomas et al., 2000), and not psychometrically rigorous (Condon & Clifford, 2010; Goldring et al., 2009; Heck & Marcoulides, 1996). Realizing this challenge as an opportunity, in 2009 the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation released their Personnel Evaluation Standards to support schools in the broad task of assessing personnel (Gullickson & Howard, 2009). Then in 2010, the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (NCCTQ, 2010) released a report on evaluating school principals and recommended the following strategies: 1) establish a clear set of expectations and goals for the assessments (e.g., what, who, how, frequency), 2) use valid and reliable measures that help principals improve, 3) link assessments to research-based standards, and 4) use multiple forms of assessment to gather a holistic view of principal performance. In 2012, a call to action for a new framework for principal evaluation was provided in a joint-commissioned report released by the Principal Evaluation Committee of the National Association for Elementary School Principals (NAESP) and the National Association for Secondary School Principals (NASSP). Recognizing the challenged state of principal evaluations, the Committee presented a framework which outlined six domains of principal leadership for evaluation: professional growth and learning, student growth and achievement, school planning and progress, school culture, professional qualities and instructional leadership, and stakeholder support and engagement (NAESP & NASSP, 2012). In the same year, the American Institutes for Research released a report synthesizing research on principal effects, specifically for informing the design of principal evaluation systems (Clifford et al., 2012). The report highlighted two emerging perspectives typically present in United States principal evaluation policy—one of a focus on practice (what do principals do) and one focused on impact (what outcomes do principals achieve). By 2014, 36 states had adopted laws requiring principals to receive regular evaluations of their performance (Superville, 2014). However, with notable increases in expectations for principals, specifically, in instructional and equity-oriented leadership (Farley et al., 2019), attention to the role expectations of principals as well as the evaluation of such expectations has continued in the United States and across the globe (e.g., Díaz-Delgado & Garcia-Martinez, 2019; Fuller et al., 2015; Goldring et al., 2015; Lambert & Bouchamma, 2019; Larochelle-Audetet al., 2019; Liu et al., 2017; Rivero et al., 2019; Williams, 2015). Current Policy Climate Today, in order for states to receive federal funding under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, indicators of principal effectiveness must be submitted as part of the application process (ESSA, 2018). In particular, the ESSA contains various provisions that provide greater flexibility and funding as it pertains to high-quality principals. For example, under Title II, Part A (supporting effective instruction), approximately $2.3 billion/year has been allocated to states to improve the quality of teachers and school leaders, with 3% that can be allocated specifically for the principal pipeline (e.g., recruitment, retention, professional development). Under Title II, Part B, nearly $489 million a year has been authorized for use for human-capital management systems, Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 5 including performance incentives (e.g., bonuses) for principals based on student achievement outcomes. In addition, criteria used by states to measure principal effectiveness must be made public and be evidence-based. This demonstrates effort towards ensuring that principals are being evaluated (according to the National Center for Education Statistics [2019], 79% of traditional public school principals and 69% of charter school principals reported having been evaluated within the last year) and that the evaluations have consequences (such as remediation programs or dismissal). In short, today’s principal evaluation systems are an extension of the last two decades of educational reform in the United States that are characterized by increased accountability and external pressures for and oversight of principals (West et al., 2010). As such, principal evaluation is heavily controversial. On the one hand, there has been a significant push to hold principals accountable for student learning. However, others have warned policymakers to put principal effects in perspective. For instance, Williams (2015) notes that: Although it is true that principals and teachers are responsible with what happens in schools and classrooms, they alone are not solely responsible for how much and at what rate a student learns...As research has shown, the isolated effects of the principal are difficult to ascertain; therefore, it is a stretch to place “blame” on the principals for students’ lack of achievement. (p. 224) Apart from the research-based recommendations (e.g., based on research on principal effects) from various organizations (Clifford et al., 2012; NAESP & NASSP, 2012; NCCTQ, 2010), little research exists on current principal evaluation models in practice and the validity and reliability of those evaluations (Amsterdam et al., 2003; Anderson & Turnball, 2016; Babo & Ramaswami, 2011; Babo & Villaverde, 2013; Clifford & Ross, 2012). Like others have noted (Catano & Stronge, 2007) this body of literature continues to be particularly sparse in light of the considerable expansion of research on teacher evaluation (see Lavigne & Good, 2019)2. Comprehensive reviews of principal evaluation were conducted in 2009, 2015, and in 2019, and although useful, illustrates the need for continued or different review approaches. In Goldring and colleagues’ 2009 comprehensive examination of how states evaluate principals, the authors found that the evaluation of principals lacked “justification and documentation in terms of the utility, psychometric properties, and accuracy of the instruments” at the district level (Goldring et al., 2009, p. 19). Since then, Fuller et al. (2015) examined survey data from the Center on Great Teachers and Leaders. This analysis was based on state personnel surveys, used survey data from 2011 to examine 35 state policies, including DC, a follow-up survey in 2012 which included five additional states. The remaining 11 states’ data were obtained “through extensive Internet searches for original source materials on state principal evaluation efforts located on SEA website and secondary information from other websites identified through Google searches” (p. 168). This 50-state document review examined the purpose of evaluation and the use of the results. Additionally, it examined measures included within the evaluation, such as student growth, and evaluation system quality insurances. 2 The vast literature on teacher evaluation covers the following aspects: models, measures, methodological properties (e.g., American Statistical Association [ASA], 2014, Grossman et al., 2014; Hill, Kapitula, & Umland, 2011; Polikoff & Porter, 2014; Van der Lans et al., 2016), and processes (e.g., Moss & Brookhart, 2015), instability of teacher effectiveness (e.g., Good & Lavigne, 2015), principal and teacher perceptions and practices (e.g., Derrington & Campbell, 2017; Flores & Derrington, 2017; Goldring et al., 2015; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Lavigne & Chamberlain, 2017; Lavigne & Olson, 2019), as well as unintended consequences (e.g., Ford et al., 2018; Lavigne, 2014). Principal Evaluation in the United States 6 In 2019, NCTQ published a report examining the changes in principal evaluation policies between 2015 and 2019 (Ross & Walsh, 2019). Specifically, it compared the number of states with principal evaluation policies regarding measures of state growth, principal observations or site visits, annual evaluations, and survey data, as well as requiring improvement plans for underperforming principals. Since Goldring et al.’s (2009) and Fuller et al. (2015) data collection, many laws have changed on a national level, including the implementation of ESSA. While the NCTQ report (Ross & Walsh, 2019) helps us understand the national scope and trends regarding the abovementioned evaluation elements, our study extends and provides additional details regarding individual state requirements, in addition to a few evaluation elements we discovered in our review of the literature. To drive our exploratory study, we wondered: what elements of principal evaluation have been identified in empirical literature as potentially important elements? Have states incorporated these elements into their state policies? It is significant to note there was a wide variety in the number and detail of requirements in state statutes and regulations across the nation. While we do not submit that more or fewer requirements are appropriate or claim which requirements are more or less appropriate, these findings note that the field has not come to a consensus as to what a principal should and should not be held responsible for. This research will allow researchers, policymakers, and educators a glimpse of principal evaluation requirements across the United States as they endeavor to improve their practices, determine appropriate and effective principal evaluation practices, and continue to research the impact of principals on schools. Background To begin the search for literature, Education Source and ERIC search engines were utilized to find peer-reviewed, empirical literature. Keywords used in searching for empirical articles included evaluation and various arrangements of the following terms: instructional leader, principal, school, and school leader, and school manager. Articles not directly linked to principal evaluation (such as teacher evaluation) were eliminated. The result consisted of 28 articles. Despite the scarcity of peer-reviewed, empirical literature found in our search, there were a few common themes found regarding practices for principal evaluation. These themes include: student achievement, personal goals, input from multiple sources, and the timeliness of the evaluations. Student Achievement Although primarily through indirect pathways, research has found principal actions explain approximately a quarter of the variance in student achievement outcomes (Hattie, 2009 [Cohen’s d = .32]; Leithwood et al., 2004). Thus, student achievement has become an increased focus within principal evaluation. One study discovered just over five years ago that some states required a percentage of principal evaluation scores to be attributed to student test scores, such as 20% in Delaware and 50% in Ohio (Superville, 2014). This finding was similar to the Wallace Foundation’s Principal Pipeline Initiative (PPI) (Anderson & Turnball, 2016) where, in 2015, five of the six3 participating districts weighted student growth as 40% or more on the principal’s evaluation, in alignment with their state’s requirements. However, in some cases the percentage of principal’s evaluation attributed to student growth varied widely. This is demonstrated in Gwinnett County, 3 The six participating districts were: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (North Carolina), Denver Public Schools (Colorado), Gwinnett County Public Schools (Georgia), Hillsborough County Public Schools (Florida), New York City Department of Education (New York), and Prince George’s County Public Schools (Maryland). Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 7 Georgia where student growth accounted for 70% of a principal’s evaluation in 20154 as opposed to 40% which was assigned to student growth in all other participating districts. Student growth, however, does not just pertain to student growth on state standardized tests in the literature. It can also include local assessments, growth of the lowest-performing students on standardized tests, and/or growth on school-level student learning objectives (Anderson & Turnball, 2016). Despite its use in practice5, the inclusion of student achievement data in principal evaluations is not without its challenges. For example, a study found student achievement outcomes are most heavily predicted by income and education levels of the community, meaning that evaluation matrices dependent upon student test scores are “fatally flawed” (Tienken et al., 2017, p. 11). In addition, some studies have had difficulty linking student achievement to the direct and indirect influence of the principal (Fuller & Hollingworth, 2014; Leithwood et al. , 2010; Williams et al., 2008). As a result, principal evaluations rarely correspond with achievement data (McMahon et al., 2014). Despite the lack of corroborating research, student achievement continues to be used as a part of principal evaluations in order to align with the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the National Association of Elementary School Principals’ frameworks of leadership responsibility (Clifford & Ross, 2013). Multi-sourced Evaluation Research has shown expanded expectations for school leaders have had a ripple effect on evaluation and has led to the inclusion of non-academic measures such as chronic absenteeism and discipline and suspension rates under ESSA (Kostyo et al., 2018). Likewise, several researchers have suggested that principal evaluation take into account information from several sources to provide a holistic measurement of effectiveness, rather than relying solely on the superintendent’s view or student achievement (Clifford & Ross, 2011). Multiple forms or sources of evaluation are needed to create a robust evaluation, according to researchers, because the principal effects are complex and indirect (Sanders et al., 2012). Additionally, Fuller and Hollingworth (2014) examined ten strategies that focused principal evaluation on student test scores. They concluded that using student test scores as the only means to measure principal effectiveness was too simplistic. Instead, student achievement data might be part of multiple datapoints used in principal evaluation, such as part of a portfolio, which may also include artifacts evidencing principal effectiveness (Babo & Villaverde, 2013). For example, portfolios might include: principal observations, school improvement plans, school board meeting agenda, minutes, and presentations, department, faculty, and staff meeting agendas and minutes, school newsletters, information about or evidence of community partnerships, crisis and emergency plans, school audits, school website, and/or communication logs (NCLS, 2013). 4 Notably, whereas teacher evaluation models have changed over the course of educator evaluation reform to place less weight on student achievement growth and relative to observational data, some principal evaluation models demonstrate an opposite trend—with equal, and in some cases more weight attributed to student growth relative to supervisors’ ratings and other measures of professional practice such as: teacher and parent ratings and human resource management (Anderson & Turnball, 2016). 5 Although our identification of themes emerged from the literature, however, examples from practice of the use of student achievement to hold schools (principals) and districts accountable can be found around the nation. Notably, in Tennessee, which is known for its use of value-added measures, has both an indicator for growth (as measured by value-added) and a second for achievement (where either absolute performance or achievement proficiency targets is chosen) with slightly greater weight for each at the elementary and primary as opposed to the secondary level (Tennessee Department of Education, 2019). Principal Evaluation in the United States 8 In addition to having multiple sources of data for evaluation purposes, research shows evaluations should be created with input and feedback from multiple individuals, such as stakeholders (Goldring et al., 2015). Goldring et al. (2015) explored how principals reacted to feedback from multiple sources, particularly feedback from teachers. They found that while teacher feedback did not guarantee improved performance, it did lead to potential improvement in the performance of the principal. Taken together, this abovementioned literature suggests that principal evaluation should include data from multiple individuals and data sources6. Goal Setting In creating goals to be included in future evaluations, Hvidston, Range, and McKim (2015) found that principals have an opportunity to continue to focus on school goals while keeping aligned with district and state goals and mandates. In order to create good goals, research shows self- reflection may be a useful tool. In Hvidston et al.’s study, principals reported that evaluations were more valuable to them when they were able to self-reflect. Reflecting on the feedback the principals received after meeting with the superintendent regarding their evaluations was also considered helpful according to the principals. Research also identifies goal setting as related to learner-centered leadership (Sun & Youngs, 2009). For example, in a quantitative study of leadership in 13 Michigan school districts (n = 19 principal evaluators, n = 138 principals), Sun and Youngs found that instructional-leadership focused principal evaluation models included a focus on school goal setting, and this, in turn directly supported principals’ effects on teaching and learning. In addition, individual goals led to a greater commitment to and a greater likelihood of achieving the goal, according to one study (Sinnema & Robinson, 2012). This finding was particularly interesting, as principals were sometimes asked to create school-level goals in place of, or in addition to, individual-level goals (Anderson & Turnball, 2016). While more likely to set a teaching and learning goal than any other kind, principals were more likely to set vague performance-type goals, leading to vague achievement evaluations (Sinnema & Robinson, 2012). One way principals can improve their goals is by creating them in conjunction with and receiving feedback on their goals from trained evaluators and/or supervisors to increase the extent to which goals are specific and have designated measurable outcomes (citation or reword). Trained Supervisors If principals are to become better through the feedback on their evaluations, the individual providing the feedback must be trained to give it (Clifford & Ross, 2011). Principals have noted in multiple studies that feedback needs to be given from superintendents or supervisors who are trained to do so in order to receive helpful, individual, and specific feedback (Hvidston et al., 2015; McMahon et al., 2014). There is evidence showing evaluating principals is difficult (Zepeda et al., 2014). In a qualitative study, a superintendent noted the tensions around balancing what should and should not be included in principal evaluation and discrepancies in data used within evaluations (Zepeda et al., 2014). While no assumption was made by the authors that this superintendent was or was not given training on carrying out principal evaluations, it is logical to assume that lack of 6 In understanding multiple sources of data as applied to practice, PPI districts utilized as little as three data sources (student growth (measured in two ways) and supervisor ratings), to as many as seven. In Denver Public Schools, the principal evaluation consisted of: supervisor observations/ratings, teacher perception/satisfaction survey, human resource management data (hiring, retaining, supporting, removing teachers), teacher observation completion rates, parent satisfaction survey, and growth on state standardized achievement test (Anderson & Turnball, 2016). Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 9 training increases superintendents’ tensions regarding how to evaluate principals and, if an evaluation system is already in place, how to rate and rank principal effectiveness within the evaluation. However, research shows principals desire honest and open communication in relation to their evaluations from supervisors in the form of positive reinforcement and constructive criticism on areas for improvement (Hvidston et al., 2018). This study concluded such reinforcement and criticism requires that the superintendent is “prepared and knowledgeable” (p. 220). Additional research concluded, some districts work with principal supervisors to establish calibration so that supervisors are consistently rating principals across a district, engage principal supervisors in evaluation simulations, such as rating videos and providing feedback, and provide ongoing support to help supervisors better distinguish between artifacts and evidence, and rating categories such as effective, highly effective, and needs improvement (Anderson & Turnball, 2016). Timeliness and Frequency While a trained supervisor or evaluator is imperative to improved performance, it will not be helpful to principals hoping to improve if the evaluations and formative feedback are given during the summer or after the principal has been moved to a different school. Feedback must be timely (NCLS, 2013). Notably, a study showed some principals did not receive feedback from their evaluations until three to six months later (Hvidston et al., 2015). This could mean principals are not receiving feedback from mid-school year evaluations until the school year has ended. In addition, research shows more consistent observations and opportunities for feedback are desired by principals. They want to be observed more and get more feedback to know they are “on the right track” (Hvidston et al., 2018, p. 221). Unfortunately, research shows principals rarely receive regular feedback, leaving them without much direction. For example, as part of a larger study, Sun et al. (2012) sampled 88 Michigan principals and found that 40% had been evaluated once every three years, 26.25% had been evaluated once a year, and 6% had never been evaluated. Furthermore, as supervision and evaluation serve distinctively different purposes, but are intricately intertwined, the ability for evaluation to drive school improvement is diminished when supervisors are not frequently providing feedback informed by the evaluation rubric (Anderson & Turnball, 2016). In essence, end- of-year feedback does little to nothing in helping a school leader make improvements throughout the year. In sum, extant literature points to the inclusion of student achievement, personal goals, and multiple measures in principal evaluations. These evaluations should be conducted in a timely manner, with frequent observations and feedback from supervisors who are trained to provide effective and knowledgeable feedback. We use these themes to inform the current study. Methodology Our descriptive 50-state policy review consisted of the following steps: 1) examine literature for themes surrounding principal evaluation, and specifically what should or should not be included in the evaluation, 2) identify themes that emerged from the literature, 3) locate statutes and regulations from each state, 4) use themes from the literature to guide data collection efforts and analysis in each state’s statutes and regulations (is it included or is it not and in how much detail). Given the relatively limited empirical literature on principal evaluation, we intentionally chose to employ a descriptive and exploratory methodology to establish a better understanding of the state of principal evaluation and to “uncover patterns and inform and improve decision-making” (Loeb et al., 2017, p. 3). Thus, our full analysis is guided by the following research questions: 1. What elements are present in the principal evaluation policies in the United States? Principal Evaluation in the United States 10 2. Do states’ principal evaluation policies identify particular stakeholder groups? Procedures To determine which elements are present in state statute and regulation, each of them first had to be acquired. State government and board of education websites of all 50 states were accessed by the first author between June, July, and August 2019 and the latest available statutes and regulations were downloaded. State representatives were contacted on multiple occasions if documentation of statutes and regulations were unavailable to determine their presence or absence. Statutes and regulations without mention of principal evaluations were discarded. Between the board regulations, educational codes (which are created in many states by state educational boards and are hereafter included as board regulations), and legislative statutes, all 50 states had some form of statute or regulation policy regarding principal evaluations from which we could collect data. While it is difficult to ascertain the number of documents that were accessed as part of the entire review of state statutes and regulations for reasons such as broken links, incorrect documentation, and differing state-to-state formatting of these policies, we estimate about 40 state regulations and 30 state statutes included principal evaluation policies and were included in this analysis. State statutes and board regulations were then analyzed to determine what each state required regarding principal evaluation in regards to student achievement (growth and raw scores), goal setting (individual and/or with supervisor), stakeholders (e.g., parents, students, teachers, staff), measures used (input sources such as supervisor and teachers, student assessments, weighting), and feedback (from trained individuals, timeliness). This information was then recorded (see Appendix 1). The second author checked and verified sources when sources were ambiguous, unclear, or were unable to be located. To verify the accuracy of data collection, the second author used a random number generator to check 10% of the sample, or in this case the population (n = 5), for reliability (Kaid & Wadsworth, 1989). Reliability on the selected sub-sample—Alabama , Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, and Michigan—was 100% on all variables. Inter-rater reliability exceeded recommendations for inter- coder agreement—a minimum of 85% (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2013) for this randomly selected, initial sub-set. Therefore, the inter-rater reliability check was determined complete. Findings RQ 1. What elements are present in the principal evaluation policies in the United States? Of the 50 states, only four (8%) – Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia – had statutes and/or regulations regarding all elements noted in the literature review. A full list of states and evaluation policy elements regarding goal setting, stakeholder input, student achievement, other sources of data, and weighting are given in Appendix 1 and evaluator training and feedback elements are displayed in Appendix 2, but a synopsis of each is provided here. Seventeen states (34%) mentioned—either required or suggested the optional inclusion of— goal setting in their policies regarding principal evaluations. We defined collaborative goal setting as creating goals in conjunction with or under the approval of a supervisor. Thirteen states (26%) required collaborative goal setting (see Figure 1). Some policies, such as Delaware, require goal setting conferences multiple times per year (Del. Code tit. 14, §108). Other states, such as Louisiana, maintain that goals used for evaluation are based only on “student learning targets” (La. Code tit. 28 §301). West Virginia regulation states, “The school leader and the evaluator with mutually establish annual written goals for the administrator’s performance evaluation on or before November 1” (W. Va. Code, 126§142). The remaining four states (8%) - Colorado, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and South Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 11 Dakota - required principals to create and achieve goals, but were not required to collaborate in the creation process. Figure 1 States that Include Collaborative Goal Setting in Principal Evaluation Policies Note: Shaded states require collaborative goal setting. Student achievement was described in many different ways across policies, including growth, achievement, learning, performance, and student data. Overall, 33 states (66%) required some type of student achievement data to be used in principal evaluations while Alaska, California, and Ohio (6% of states) mentioned achievement to be an optional measure. Growth data was required by 25 (50%) states (see Figure 2) and 18 (36%) states required other forms of student achievement data. Indiana required student achievement and/or growth data (Ind. Admin. Code, 511 §10, 2016). Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas included value- added models to assess student achievement as part of their requirements or optional principal evaluation elements. Of the 36 (72%) states that mentioned student achievement data in their policies on principal evaluation. States described student achievement data in a variety of ways. Connecticut requires “multiple student learning indicators” (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2017) to be used, including graduation rates and other “indicators… relevant to the student population” (Connecticut State Department of Education 2017, Section 3). Pennsylvania requires the use of district and national standardized tests in their evaluations, but also requires the use of student projects and portfolios (Pa. Code, 022 §19.2,2013). A total of 12 (24%) states required both growth scores and other student achievement data to be used in principal evaluations. Principal Evaluation in the United States 12 Figure 2 States that Require Student Achievement Growth in Principal Evaluation Policies Note: Shaded states require student achievement growth. Stakeholder input was required by 17 (34%) states. Three additional states gave stakeholder input as optional to use in evaluations. Stakeholders particularly mentioned included teachers, community members, peers, supervisors, among other groups. Further information regarding stakeholders mentioned within the policies is given in the findings of research question 2. Beyond the elements listed above, many states required multi-sourced principal evaluations. Of these, the most common included observations and standards. Seventeen (34%) states required observation(s) or some form of site visit(s). The frequency and number of observations differed from state to state. For example, Utah requires “multiple supervisor observations at appropriate intervals” (Utah Admin. Code, R277-533, 2018) while other states, such as West Virginia only mention observation by noting that evaluators should use “the online observation form” (W. Va. Code, 126 §142) leaving it unclear if principals are to be observed. Standards of conduct, ethics, job descriptions, leadership, performance, and/or similar criteria were required by 19 (38%) states. In Illinois, this included not only aligning the evaluation “with research-based standards” (ILCS 105 §24A, 2019), but also “consider[ing] the principal’s specific duties, responsibilities, management, and competence as a principal” (ILCS 105 §24A, 2019). Wyoming’s requirements are an example of how some states give more latitude to the individual districts regarding use of standards (Wyo. Admin. Rules 29 §3). The evaluation system is to be based on either the Wyoming standards for districts and leaders or “standards prescribed by the board of trustees, so long as standard 1 of the Wyoming standards for district and school leaders… is included in the board’s standard” (Wyo, Admin. Rules 29 §3). Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 13 Additional requirements included the administrator’s “effectiveness in addressing school safety and enforcing student discipline” (Va. Code 15 §22.1), efficiency and ability (HI Rev. Stat. §302A), and an “assessment of the educator’s effectiveness in supporting every student in meeting rigorous learning goals through the performance of the educator’s duties” (Mont. Admin. Rules §10.55.701). Overall, 41 (82%) states have requirements for multiple sources of data (including goal setting, stakeholder input, and student achievement). The weighting, or a range of weights, for elements of principal evaluations on the state level was prescribed by 19 (38%) states (see Figure 3). As with the other elements, weightings differed across states. Arizona requires “quantitative data on student academic progress [to account] for between 33% and 50% of the evaluation outcomes” (ARS §15-203), but does not give weightings for any other elements of the evaluation. Colorado’s weighting of 50% principal professional practice items and 50% student learning typifies several states (1 CCR 301-87-5.01). One of the more complex and variable weighting systems comes from New Jersey, where the evaluation must include 10-40% growth, 10-20% teacher growth, and 10-40% administrator goal, but principal practices must comprise less than 50% (NJAC 6A §10). Figure 3 States that Prescribe Weights for Principal Evaluation Measures Note: Shaded states prescribe evaluation measure weights. Training for evaluators in connection with principal evaluations were mentioned in 31 (62%) state policies. See Figure 4. Oklahoma statute states: All individual designated by the school district board of education to conduct personnel evaluations shall be required to participate in training conducted by the State Department of Education or training provided by the school district using guidelines and materials Principal Evaluation in the United States 14 developed by the State Department of Education prior to conducting evaluations. (70 OK Stat § 70-6-101.31). The state regulation expounds on this, requiring the training to include the states effectiveness evaluation framework (OAC 210 §20). Many states have similar requirements. However, other states have far more policy regarding evaluators. New York has a subpart of their statute going into detail about evaluator training, including how to use the evaluation assessments, what research-based observation should look like, and “considerations in evaluating teachers and principals of English language learners and students with disabilities” (NY CRR tit. 8 § 30). Figure 4 States that Require that Principal Evaluators be Trained Note: Shaded states require principal evaluators to be trained. Feedback, meaning timeliness of feedback after evaluation and frequency of evaluations, was discussed in 43 (86%) state policies. Fifteen states described how timely the feedback was to be given to principals. The timeliness ranged from specific dates to within a set number of days of the evaluation, such as within 10 days of the evaluation (Fla. Rule 6A, 2018; Ga. Code 160 §5) or before September 15 (4 AAC 19.055), to as soon as possible (NMAC 6 §69). Likewise, there was a wide range in the required frequency of evaluations. While 27 (54%) states required annual evaluations of all principals, the frequency varied based on licensure or experience in 10 (20%) states. For example, Washington requires annual evaluations for the first three years and then a comprehensive evaluation every six years thereafter with focused evaluations taking place annually between comprehensive evaluations (RCW 28A §405). Kansas does biannual evaluations for the first two years, annual for the third and fourth, and then every three years thereafter (Kan. Stat. tit. 281 §72). Cyclical variations were used in Oregon and Rhode Island. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 15 RQ 2. Do states’ principal evaluation policies identify particular stakeholder groups? Nineteen (38%) states require or give the option for stakeholders to be used in principal evaluations (See Figure 5). Within these 19 states, 16 (32%) gave required stakeholders to be included and 5 (10%) gave optional stakeholder suggestions. Teachers and staff were most likely to be mentioned, with eight (16%) states requiring their input while Colorado and Idaho list them as optional data sources. Parents or guardians were required by Alaska, Rhode Island, Utah, and West Virginia and optional for Colorado, Florida, Idaho, North Carolina, and Pennsyvlania. Other groups mentioned, as required or optional, included, students, administrators/peers, and community members. Supervisors were specifically mentioned by Colorado, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. Connecticut and Oklahoma specifically required stakeholder input, but did not elaborate as to who those stakeholders were. Figure 5 States with Required or Optional Stakeholder Input Policies Note: Shaded states have optional or required stakeholder input policies. While many states did not expand upon how stakeholder groups should or could provide their input, Colorado gave many examples. Colorado suggests the use of “school newsletters,… evidence of community partnerships, parent engagement and participation rates, ‘360 degree’ survey tools designed to solicit feedback from multiple stakeholder perspectives,… [and] teacher retention data” (1 CCR 301) as ways to obtain and measure teacher, student, parent/guardian, and/or other administrators’ input. The next section will discuss implication of these findings and their limitations. Principal Evaluation in the United States 16 Discussion The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine what evaluation elements were included in state statutes and regulations, across the United States. South Carolina’s General Assembly asserts “that the leadership of the principal is key to the success of a school, and support for ongoing, integrated professional development is integral to better schools and to the improvement of the actual work of teachers and school staff” (SCCL 24 §59). As school success is dependent upon the leadership of the principal (Hattie, 2009), evaluations of principals are essential to determine whether the principal is indeed a positive influence on the school. Although limited, current literature has focused on goal setting (Anderson & Turnball, 2016; Hvidston et al., 2015; Sinnema & Robinson, 2012, Sun & Youngs, 2009), multi-sourced evaluations, including stakeholder input (Clifford & Ross, 2011; Fuller & Hollingworth, 2014; Goldring et al., 2015), student achievement (Anderson & Turnball, 2016; Fuller & Hollingworth, 2014; Leithwood et al., 2010; McMahon et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2008), and evaluator training and feedback (Anderson & Turnball, 2016; Hvidston et al., 2015; Hvidston et al., 2018; McMahon et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2012; Zepeda et al., 2014) as elements of principal evaluations. In short, using literature-based themes, our analysis of state statutes and regulations revealed that a majority of states required at least one literature-based element. Only four (8%) states had statutes and/or regulations regarding all elements of principal evaluation that have been noted in the literature. Although the most controversial, student achievement measures were the most common component and were required in 66% of states. In addition, most states required principal evaluators to be trained, and that principals were to be evaluated annually. Limitations First, it should be noted that this analysis, as well as state educators and lawmakers, was limited by the lack of research on principal evaluation. This limitation is important to keep in mind, for as we can report our findings from within state policies, we are unable to comment as to the effectiveness or validity of any measures required or suggested for principal evaluations within state statutes and regulations, an issue that was noted a decade ago by Goldring et al. (2009) and that continues to be problematic in principal evaluation. Further, we did not examine principal evaluation in practice nor the evaluation models or rubrics that were either recommended or prescribed by states. Therefore, we are unable to comment on how or to what extent statutes and regulations impacted actual practice. However, the literature on educational policy demonstrates that policies are often modified to fit local context. Honig and Hatch (2004) describe this as “crafting coherence” as districts make sense between internal goals and external demands. Thus, we would anticipate variation and deviance from statutes regulations, especially across districts. It is possible, like in the case of standards-based reform (see Coburn et al., 2016, for a review of this literature), that policy has relatively superficial or limited impact on practice, rendering it important to extend this work to the study of “why” not just the “what” and “how” of principal evaluation, taking into consideration important variables like capacity (Honig, 2003) or network strength (Daly & Finnegan, 2011). Implications Yet even with these limitations in mind, we provided important foundational work to guide subsequent research. Relative to the 36 states that had adopted laws requiring principals to receive regular evaluations of their performance by 2014 (Superville, 2014), our search of state statutes and regulations indicated that as of 2019 all 50 states did have policies regarding principal evaluations, though they vary greatly in their requirements and details. It is unsurprising that all states have some Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 17 form of policy regarding principal evaluation, as ESSA funds require principal effectiveness indicators to be created (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 2018). Beyond some emerging consensus among states in possible measures of principal effectiveness, the weights applied to and importance placed upon such measures varied widely and there appears to be little progress on this, at least within the last three years (Anderson & Turnball, 2016) or even within the last decade (Goldring et al., 2009). Hence, a principal engaging in a set of practices and achieving a given set of outcomes may be designated as effective in one state, but ineffective in another. This inconsistency across states is concerning as it suggests the possibility of a gap between law-makers’ and researchers’ understanding of expectations for principals and the influence principals have in improving student outcomes and teacher effectiveness. This deficiency leads to confusion regarding the roles and responsibilities of the school principal. Our calls for greater transparency align with those by Goldring et al. (2009) from nearly a decade ago for better documentation of psychometric properties of instruments utilized by districts to evaluate principals. Sinnema and Robinson (2012) suggested that goal setting is an important part of principal evaluation because “goals set a work and development agenda for the subsequent year” (p. 137). Furthermore, districts’ focus on principals’ enactment of ambitious learning goals in principal evaluation is related to principals’ learner-centered leadership (Sun & Youngs, 2009). One promising finding is that 17 (34%) states require goal setting in their principal evaluations. However, if setting goals is important for school improvement, it is likely that principals are setting goals even if it is not part of their evaluations. While adding goal-setting as a required evaluation element in policy may not change the practices of principals already setting goals, it is worth considering if more states should have similar policies, particularly regarding collaborative goal making. While the use and weight of student achievement data in evaluating principals will likely continue to be debated, most states have policies in place requiring the use of such data. Beyond standardized test scores, many policies were unclear as to what type of student achievement data was to be used. For instance, Wisconsin statute stated “student performance” (Wis. Statute 115 §415) while Pennsylvania regulations require more than testing data to be used in their evaluations (Pennsylvania Code, 022 § 19.2., 2013). The use of non-standardized testing student achievement data, such as suspension rates or absenteeism is one way to include multiple measurements for principal evaluations (Kostyo et al., 2018; Sanders et al., 2012). However, without clarity as to what these performance measures are, we are unable to determine whether inclusion in these evaluations is valid. In addition, lack of clarity as to what measures are used may lead to differing interpretations among district, meaning a principal under one district’s evaluation measures may be labeled as ‘proficient’, while under another district’s measures is labeled ‘needs improvement’. Growth scores from standardized tests were the most common source of student achievement data. This may contribute to greater reliability in measurements of principal evaluations, particularly when there is high principal retention at the same school. However, it seems unlikely that growth scores would be a valid evaluation element when principals change schools often. In 2016-2017, the national average of tenure of principals in their school was four years and nearly 35% of principals have been at their school for two years or less. Annually, nearly 18% principals leave their school from one year to the next, and in high poverty schools this percentage is even higher— 21% (Levin & Bradley, 2019). Yet, the effects of principals’ improvement efforts are not recognizable in student achievement outcomes for 5 to 7 years (Borman et al., 2003; Fullan, 2001; Gross et al., 2009). Taken together, these findings suggested that despite the wide use of student achievement data by states, it is unlikely that principals are actually being held accountable for results that can be attributed to their own leadership actions and initiatives. Thus, the use of student achievement data in principal evaluations continues to be problematic and warrants additional study. Principal Evaluation in the United States 18 Furthermore, it may be particularly problematic in settings that experience higher levels of turnover, such as schools that serve a larger proportion of minoritized students (Gates et al., 2006)7. Future research would help shed light on these issues, particularly: what measures of student achievement data are actually used in principal evaluation. In addition, extraneous variables may have great influence, on both growth and student achievement scores, such as teacher attrition, community tragedies, and even fire alarms going off during testing. Perhaps it is because of the unknown reliability of holding principals directly responsible for student achievement, including growth scores, that all states requiring the use of growth scores also required at least one other assessment measure to be used, with the exception of Michigan. It was interesting to find that all 19 states that had a weighting scale also required student achievement measures in their evaluations. We wonder if this was done either to ensure student achievement measures were used - and not eliminated - from principal evaluations, or to ensure student achievement measures were not the only source of information to be used on evaluations. Further research could show whether these options were the case or if other reasoning was behind these weighting decisions. Many states require principals to be evaluated annually. Of the states where evaluation cycles are determined based on experience or certification (18%), Arkansas is the only state to not require evaluation of the principal for the first three years. This is interesting, particularly in comparison to Kansas and North Dakota which require biannual evaluations for the first two and three years, respectively. It would interesting to know if this has to do with tenure or licensure processes, the type of evaluation done in each state, or, in the case of Kansas and North Dakota, to ensure beginning principals have access to additional assistance through more frequent evaluations. Future research might explore to what extent states encourage or consider development supervision and evaluation practices and processes (see Glickman et al., 2017, for a developmental approach to teacher supervision), honoring what we know about career stages of the principalship (Day & Bakioğlu, 1996; Oplatka, 2012) and the time is takes to acquire results from school improvement efforts, as noted earlier. In addition, it was interesting to note that Washington only evaluates their principals comprehensively every six years while using shorter or focused evaluations annually to assess performance in “one of the eight criteria selected for a performance rating plus professional growth activities specifically linked to the selected criteria” (RCW 295 §303). This greatly differs from the 27 states that only state principals are to be evaluated annually. More research could shed light on which of these practices produces better results, including student achievement results, teacher retention, goal achievement, and financially. In examining our overall analysis, we have many questions and thoughts regarding future research. Future research could explore how states developed their principal evaluation policies and how these policies were enacted in practice, following in the footsteps of the more robust literature on teacher evaluation. We wonder, therefore, in the absence of more research on principal evaluation how states arrived at: 1) the chosen measures included in their principal evaluation models, and 2) the weights, if they have been assigned, to such measures—a worthy topic for future research. In cases where policymakers do point to research, we wonder if they are using such findings in appropriate ways to inform policy (Lubienski et al., 2016). In alignment with extant 7 In noting this research, we are not making the claim that school leaders in schools that serve minoritized youth should not be held accountable for student learning and that their colleagues in comparison schools should, but that evaluation procedures using student achievement data may not be equally valid across disparate school contexts. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 19 literature (Hvidston et al., 2015, 2018; McMahon et al., 2014), we also wonder: How were superintendents trained to evaluate principals and what was the rigor of such trainings (e.g., required a passing score on a test, multiple trainings throughout the year, interrater reliability establishment and attention to coder drift)? How prepared are superintendents to evaluate principals? What is the effectiveness of the feedback they provide to principals? What are the effects of principal evaluation systems on principals’ growth and development, practices, and effectiveness? Notably, many of these questions were raised nearly a decade ago (see Clifford & Ross, 2011), but significant gaps in research remain. We also wonder what principals’ experiences of the evaluations are in each state. Pashiardis and Brauckmann (2008) point to large gaps between stated and perceived purposes of principal evaluation. We wonder, then: do principals’ daily experiences align with their evaluation measures? Does this alignment include professional development opportunities catered to the evaluative feedback they were given (McMahon et al., 2014)? Additionally, it would be interesting to note if principals’ engagement in the development of the evaluation system shaped their perceptions of the system’s effectiveness. Principals struggle to find enough time to accommodate the existing and the increasing expectations placed upon them (Lavigne & Good, 2019). Evaluations are one tool to help principals prioritize these demands. It allows districts to communicate what responsibilities of the principal they deem most important. The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine what evaluation elements were included in state statutes and regulations, across the United States. Ultimately, the great variation we observed in some aspects of principal evaluation across the states underscores the need for more and better research to inform principal evaluation policy and practice in ways that helps supervisors effectively assess and improve principal effectiveness in the United States, and perhaps even across the globe. Principal Evaluation in the United States 20 Appendix Evaluation Measures Goal Setting Stakeholder Input Student Assessments Other Sources Weighting State Individual Collaborative Growth Scores (general) Alabama Alaska students, parents, community members, teachers, other administrators optional observation Arizona academic progress, value-added Yes Arkansas observation, artifacts, standards, and other data California optional options given Colorado Yes supervisor required, teachers, students, parents/ guardians, and other admin strongly encouraged Yes Yes state standards strongly encouraged; Others sources strongly encouraged Yes Connecticut Yes stakeholders Optional multiple learning indicators teacher effectiveness outcomes, observations, self- collected evidence, standards Yes Delaware Yes Yes Yes Florida optional: parents Yes performance from multiple sources, value added optional Yes Georgia Yes multiple sources required but not enumerated Yes Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 21 Hawaii efficiency, ability, and other such criteria Idaho optional: parents/ guardians, teachers, students Yes standards Illinois Yes job requirements (i.e. duties, management), standards Yes Indiana Optional achievement optional, other assessments required observations Yes Iowa Yes standards, documents, artifacts Kansas community performance and results efficiency, personal qualities, deportment, ability, results, and performance Kentucky Yes teachers, students, peers, supervisors Yes standards, self- reflection, site visits, performance criteria Louisiana Yes Yes other student data, value-added job descriptions, observations Yes Maine peer Yes standards, multiple measures (unlisted) Maryland Yes standards, observations Yes Massachusetts Yes staff Yes learning and achievement observations, relevant evidence Michigan Yes value-added Minnesota Yes, longitudinally multiple measures of student progress standards, observations, previous evaluations surveys Yes Principal Evaluation in the United States 22 Mississippi staff school outcomes observations Missouri Montana standards, assessment of effectiveness, skill sets, support of students in meeting learning goals Nebraska Several types including professional and personal conduct Nevada Yes performance observations, involvement and engagement with parents and student families, instructional leadership, support of learning, effectiveness of school community Yes New Hampshire New Jersey Yes supervisor Yes standards required; other sources suggested Yes New Mexico school employees competencies and indicators New York Yes multiple measures in performance observations Yes North Carolina Yes supervisor required; optional: parents, students, community teacher retention, teacher support, and school climate, other artifacts suggested North Dakota Ohio Optional options given Oklahoma Yes stakeholders standards Oregon Yes multiple measures options given but not required Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 23 Pennsylvania Yes optional: family, parent, school and community performance (not limited to testing), value-added standards, additional options given but not required yes Rhode Island Yes students, parents and guardians, colleagues, supervisors Yes observations, demonstration of professional responsibilities South Carolina standards South Dakota Yes demonstrate ability to communicate with staff, review research and data, management skills, and school safety Tennessee Yes achievement, value-added observation, surveys Yes Texas Yes Yes standards Yes Utah students, parents, teachers, support professionals Yes observations, optional contributions by evaluee Vermont Yes Yes observations, artifacts Virginia student learning standards, skills and knowledge, school safety, discipline Washington building staff Yes multiple measures job description, and much more criteria West Virginia Yes teachers, students, parents, service personnel Yes achievement standards, observations, professional conduct Yes Wisconsin performance educator practice, standards, observations Yes Wyoming Yes Yes goal setting, self- analysis, info and data analysis, state standards Note: Blank squares represent missing or unfound information in state statutes and regulations. Principal Evaluation in the United States 24 Appendix 2 Feedback in Principal Evaluation State Trained Evaluator Timeliness Frequency Alabama Annually Alaska Yes September 15 Annually Arizona Yes Arkansas Not required first three years California Annually first two years, then governing board's discretion Colorado Yes Connecticut Yes As soon as practical annually - pre, mid, and end year reviews Delaware Yes Annually - goal-setting, mid, and summative Florida Yes Within 10 days Annually Georgia Yes Within 10 days Annually - pre, mid, & sum Hawaii Annually Idaho Yes Annually Illinois Annually Indiana Yes Within 7 days Annually Iowa Yes Annually Kansas Biannually first two years, annually third and fourth year, every three years after fourth year Kentucky Yes Within one week Annually Louisiana Yes Annually Maine Yes Once every three years Maryland Yes Annually Massachusetts Yes Annually Michigan Yes Timely Annually Minnesota Yes Annually Mississippi Annually Missouri Montana Annually if nontenured, regularly if tenured Nebraska Yes Promptly Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 25 Nevada Annually if probationary New Hampshire New Jersey Yes Within 15 teaching days Twice/year or three if not tenured New Mexico Yes As soon as possible Annually New York Yes As soon as practicable Annually North Carolina Yes Annually - mid & sum North Dakota On or before December or April 15 Biannually first three years, annually afterward Ohio End of contract year or 60 days before end of contract Annually Oklahoma Yes Annually Oregon Regular cycle Pennsylvania Rhode Island Yes Cyclical process South Carolina Every three years South Dakota Annually for first four years and biannually afterward Tennessee Yes Annually Texas Yes Annually - pre, mid, and end year conference Utah Yes Annually Vermont Yes Virginia Every three years Washington Yes Annually for first three years, comprehensive every six years thereafter West Virginia Yes On or before July 1 Annually Wisconsin Wyoming Yes Determined by the board of trustees Annually Note: Blank squares represent missing or unfound information in state statutes and regulations Principal Evaluation in the United States 26 References 1 CCR 301 4 AAC 19.055 70 OK Stat § 70-6-101.31 (2018). American Statistical Association. (2014). ASA statement on using value-added models for educational assessment. http://www.amstat.org/ASA/Science-Policy-and-Advocacy/home.aspx Amsterdam, C. E., Johnson, R. L., Monrad, D. M., & Tonnsen, S. L. (2003). A collaborative approach to the development and validation of a principal evaluation system: A case study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(3), 221–242. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11092- 005-2981-y Anderson, L. M., & Turnball, B. J. (2016). Evaluating and supporting principals. (PR-2105). Policy Studies Associates. Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Building-a-Stronger- Principalship-Vol-4-Evaluating-and-Supporting-Principals.pdf ARS §15-203 (2018). Babo, G., & Ramaswami, S. (2011). Principal evaluation and the application of the ISLLC 2008 standards' 'functions' by school superintendents: A national study. International Studies in Educational Administration, 39, 77–90. Babo, G., & Villaverde, C. (2013). Principal evaluation using a comprehensive portfolio development approach to facilitate professional growth and renewal. International Studies in Educational Administration, 41, 93–102. Berliner, D. C. (2008). Research policy, and practice: The great disconnect. In S. D. Lapan & M. T. Quartaroli (Eds.), Research essentials: An introduction to designs and practices (pp. 295–326). Jossey- Bass. Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. (1996). The manufactured crisis: Myths, frauds, and the attack on America’s public schools. Basic Books. http://doi.org/10.2307/358281 Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073002125 Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school administration on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303–333. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210380788 Catano, N., & Stronge, J. H. (2007). What do we expect of school principals? Congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 10(4), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120701381782 Ch, A. H., Ahmad, S., Malik, M., & Batool, A. (2017). Principals' leadership styles and teachers' job satisfaction: A correlation study at secondary level. Bulletin of Education and Research, 39(3), 45– 56. http://doi.org/10.1037/e572162012-001 Clifford, M., Behrstock-Sherratt, E., & Fetters, J. (2012). The ripple effect: A synthesis of research on principal influence to inform performance evaluation design. American Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/1707_The_Ripple_Effect_d8_O nline_0.pdf Clifford, M., & Ross, S. (2011). Designing principal evaluation systems: Research to guide decision- making, an executive summary of current research. Retrieved from https://www.naesp.org/sites/default/files/PrincipalEvaluation_ExecutiveSummary.pdf Clifford, M., & Ross, S. (2012). The future of principal evaluation. Principal, 91(5), 16–19. http://www.amstat.org/ASA/Science-Policy-and-Advocacy/home.aspx http://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-005-2981-y http://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-005-2981-y https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Building-a-Stronger-Principalship-Vol-4-Evaluating-and-Supporting-Principals.pdf https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Building-a-Stronger-Principalship-Vol-4-Evaluating-and-Supporting-Principals.pdf http://doi.org/10.2307/358281 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073002125 https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210380788 https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120701381782 http://doi.org/10.1037/e572162012-001 https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/1707_The_Ripple_Effect_d8_Online_0.pdf https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/1707_The_Ripple_Effect_d8_Online_0.pdf https://www.naesp.org/sites/default/files/PrincipalEvaluation_ExecutiveSummary.pdf Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 27 Clifford, M., & Ross, S. (2013). A new look at principal evaluation. Principal Leadership, 13(7), 51–52. Coburn, C. E., Hill, H. C., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). Alignment and accountability in policy design and implementation: The Common Core State Standards and implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16651080 Connecticut State Department of Education (2017, October). Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/SDE/Evaluation-and- Support/Guidelines_for_Educator_Evaluation_2017.pdf?la=en Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education. Harvard Education Press. Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. S. (2011). The ebb and flow of social network ties between district leaders under high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 39–79. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210368990 Day, C., & Bakioğlu, A. (1996). Development and disenchantment in the professional lives of headteachers. In I. Goodson & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teachers’ professional lives (pp. 123–139). The Falmer Press. Del. Code tit. 14, §108 Derrington, M. L., & Campbell, J. W. (2017). Teacher evaluation policy tools: Principals’ selective use in instructional leadership. Leadership and Policy in Schools. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1326143 Diaz-Delgado, M. A., & Garcia-Martinez, I. (2019). Estándares para la dirección escolar en España y México: Un estudio comparativo. Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 27(113). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4565 Every Student Succeeds Act (July 31, 2018). https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Elementary%20And%20Secondary%20Education%2 0Act%20Of%201965.pdf Farley, A.N., Childs, J., & Johnson, O.A. (2019). Preparing leaders for wicked problems? How the revised PSEL and NELP standards address equity and justice. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(115). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4229 Fla. Rule 6A (2018). Flores, M. A., & Derrington, M. L. (2017). School principals’ views of teacher evaluation policy: Lessons learned from two empirical studies. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(4), 416–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1094144 Ford, T. G., Urick, A., & Wilson, A. (2018). Exploring the effect of supportive teacher evaluation experiences on U.S. teachers’ job satisfaction. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(59). http://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3559 Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. Jossey-Bass. Fuller, E. J., & Hollingworth, L. (2014). A bridge too far? Challenges in evaluating principal effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3), 466–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13506595 Fuller, E. J., Hollingworth, L., & Lui, J. (2015). Evaluating state principal evaluation plans across the United States. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 10(3), 164–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775115614291 Ga. Code 160 §5 Garza, E., Drysdale, L., Gurr, D., Jacobson, S., & Merchant, B. (2014). Leadership for school success: Lessons from effective principals. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(7), 798–811. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2013-0125 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16651080 https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210368990 https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1326143 https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4565 https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Elementary%20And%20Secondary%20Education%20Act%20Of%201965.pdf https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Elementary%20And%20Secondary%20Education%20Act%20Of%201965.pdf https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4229 https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1094144 http://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3559 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13506595 https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775115614291 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2013-0125 Principal Evaluation in the United States 28 Gates, S. M., Ringel, J. S., Santibañez, L., Gaurino, S., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., & Brown, A. (2006). Mobility and turnover among school principals. Economics of Education Review, 25, 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.01.008 Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2017). SuperVision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (10th ed.). Pearson. Goldring, E., Cravens, X. C., Murphy, J., Porter, A. C., Elliott, S. N., & Carson, B. (2009). The evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban districts assess leadership? The Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1086/598841 Goldring, E. B., Grissom, J. A., Rubin, M., Neumerski, C. M., Cannata, M., Drake, T., & Schuermann, P. (2015). Make room value added: Principals’ human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15575031 Goldring, E. B., Mavrogordato, M., & Haynes, K. T. (2015). Multisource principal evaluation data: Principals’ orientations and reactions to teacher feedback regarding their leadership effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(4), 572–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X14556152 Good, T. L., & Lavigne, A. L. (2015). Issues of teacher performance stability are not new: Limitations and possibilities [Peer commentary on the paper, “The stability of teacher performance and effectiveness: Implications of policies concerning teacher evaluation” by G. B. Morgan, K. J. Hodge, T. M. Trepinksi, & L. W. Anderson]. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n95.2014 Gross, B., Booker, T. K., & Goldhaber, D. (2009). Boosting student achievement: The effect of comprehensive school reform on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373709333886 Grossman, P., Cohen, J., Ronfeldt, M., & Brown, L. (2014). The test matters: The relationship between classroom observation scores and teacher value-added on multiple types of assessment. Educational Researcher, 43(6), 293–303. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14544542 Gullickson, A.R., & Howard, B.B. (2009). The Personnel Evaluation Standards: How to assess systems for evaluating educators (2nd ed.). Corwin Press. Harrison, W. C., & Peterson, K. D. (1986). Pitfalls in the evaluation of principals. Urban Review, 18(4), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01112130 Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. Routledge. HI Rev. Stat. §302A Hill, H. C., Kapitula, L., & Umland, K. (2011). A validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 794–831. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210387916 Honig, M. I. (2003). Building policy from practice: District central office administrators’ roles and capacity for implementing collaborative education policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03253414 Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage m multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16– 30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008016 Howell, W. G. (2015). Results of President Obama’s Race to the Top. Education Next, 15(4), 58-66. https://www.educationnext.org/results-president-obama-race-to-the-top-reform/ Hvidston, D. J., McKim, C. A., & Holmes, W. T. (2018). What are principals’ perceptions? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.01.008 https://doi.org/10.1086/598841 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15575031 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X14556152 http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n95.2014 https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373709333886 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14544542 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01112130 https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210387916 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03253414 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008016 https://www.educationnext.org/results-president-obama-race-to-the-top-reform/ Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 29 Recommendations for improving the supervision and evaluation of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 102(3), 214–227. Hvidston, D. J., Range, B. G., & McKim, C. A. (2015). Principals’ perceptions regarding their supervision and evaluation. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 12(3), 20–33. ILCS 105 §24A (2019). Ind. Admin. Code, 511 §10 (2016). Kaid, L. L., & Johnson, A. J. (1989). Content analysis. In P. Emmert & L. L. Barker (Eds.), Measurement of Communication Behavior (pp. 197–217). Longman. Kan. Stat. tit. 281 §72 Kennedy, M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674039513 Kostyo, S., Cardichon, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2018). Making ESSA’s equity promise real: State strategies to close the opportunity gap. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/ Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2016). Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators? A case study of principals’ views and experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(5), 711–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16653445 La. Code tit. 28 §301 Ladd, H. (2009). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of policy-relevant outcomes (National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research Working Paper No. 33). CALDER. www.caldercenter.org/upload/Working-paper-33_FINAL.pdf Lambert, M., & Bouchamma, Y. (2019). The development of competencies required for school principals in Quebec: Adequacy between competency standard and practice. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(116). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4211 Larochelle-Audet, J., Magnan, M.O., Potvin, M., & Doré, E. (2019). Comparative and critical analysis of competency standards for school principals: Towards an inclusive and equity perspective in Québec. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(112). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4217 Lavigne, A. L. (2014). Exploring the implications of high-stakes teacher evaluation on schools, teachers, and students. Teachers College Record, 116(1), 1–21. https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17294 Lavigne, A. L., & Chamberlain, R. (2017). Teacher evaluation in Illinois: School leaders’ perceptions and practices. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 29(2), 179– 209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-016-9250-0 Lavigne, A. L., & Good, T. L. (2019). Enhancing teacher education, development, and evaluation: Lessons learned from educational reform. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315630892 Lavigne, A. L., & Good, T. L. (2015). Improving teaching through observation and feedback: Going beyond state and federal mandates. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315777030 Lavigne, A. L., & Olson, A. M. (2019). Teacher evaluation through the eyes of the principal: How individual and school contexts shape perceptions of practice. Leadership & Policy in Schools. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1637899 Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Whalstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. Wallace Foundation. Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10377347 Levin, S., & Bradley, K. (2019). Understanding and addressing principal turnover: A review of the research. National Association of Secondary School Principals. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674039513 https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/ https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16653445 http://www.caldercenter.org/upload/Working-paper-33_FINAL.pdf https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4211 https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4217 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-016-9250-0 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315630892 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315777030 https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1637899 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10377347 Principal Evaluation in the United States 30 Liu, S., Xu, X., Grant, L., Strong, J., & Feng, Z. (2017). Professional standards and performance evaluation for principals in China: A policy analysis of the development of principal standards. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 45(2), 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215587304 Loeb, S., Dynarski, S., McFarland, D., Morris, P., Reardon, S., & Reber, S. (2017). Descriptive analysis in education: A guide for researchers. (NCEE 2017–4023). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573325.pdf Lubienski, C., DeBray, E., & Scott, J. (2016, May 26). The push and pull of research: Lessons from a multi- site study of research use in educational policy. http://wtgrantfoundation.org/push-pull-research- lessons-multi-site-study-research-use-education-policy Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (Eds.). (2017). Toward a more perfect psychology: Improving trust, accuracy, and transparency in research. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000033-000 Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. ASCD. McMahon, M., Peters, M. L., & Schumacher, G. (2014). The principal evaluation process and its relationship to student achievement. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 11(3), 34–48. Micheaux, D. J., & Parvin, J. L. (2018). Principal evaluation as a tool for growth: How to help principals lead and learn. Learning Professional, 39(2), 52–55. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage. Mont. Admin. Rules §10.55.701 Moss, C. M., & Brookhart, S. M. (2015). Formative classroom walkthroughs: How principals and teachers collaborate to raise student achievement. ASCD. National Association of Elementary School Principals & National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2012). Rethinking principal evaluation: A new paradigm informed by research and practice. NAESP & NASSP. https://www.naesp.org/sites/default/files/PrincipalEvaluationReport.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Characteristics of public and private elementary and secondary school principals in the United States: Results from the 2017-2018 national teacher and principal survey: First look. (Eds., S. Taie & R. Goldring). https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019141_RNTPS1L.pdf National Conference of State Legislators. (2013). Evaluating school principals: A legislative approach. https://www.ncsl.org/documents/educ/SchoolPrincipals.pdf National Council on Teacher Quality. (2017). Running in place: How new teacher evaluations fail to live up to the promises. https://www.nctq.org/publications/Running-in-Place:-How-New-Teacher- Evaluations-Fail-to-Live-Up-to-Promises National Policy Board of Educational Administration. (2020). Professional standards for educational leaders. https://ccsso.org/resource-library/professional-standards-educational-leaders NJAC 6A §10 NMAC 6 §69 NY CRR tit. 8 § 30 OAC 210 §20 Oplatka, I. (2001). Types of difficulties in the induction stage: Retrospective voices of women principals. Planning and Changing, 31(1/2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215587304 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573325.pdf http://wtgrantfoundation.org/push-pull-research-lessons-multi-site-study-research-use-education-policy http://wtgrantfoundation.org/push-pull-research-lessons-multi-site-study-research-use-education-policy https://doi.org/10.1037/0000033-000 https://www.naesp.org/sites/default/files/PrincipalEvaluationReport.pdf https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019141_RNTPS1L.pdf https://www.ncsl.org/documents/educ/SchoolPrincipals.pdf https://www.nctq.org/publications/Running-in-Place:-How-New-Teacher-Evaluations-Fail-to-Live-Up-to-Promises https://www.nctq.org/publications/Running-in-Place:-How-New-Teacher-Evaluations-Fail-to-Live-Up-to-Promises https://ccsso.org/resource-library/professional-standards-educational-leaders Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 31 Pashiardis, P., &Brauckmann, S. (2008). Evaluation of school principals. In G. Crow, J. Lumby, & P. Pashiardis (Eds.), International handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders (pp. 263–279). Routledge. Payne, C. M. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Harvard Education Press. Pa. Code, 022 §19 (2013). Polikoff, M. S., & Porter, A. C. (2014). Instructional alignment as a measure of teaching quality. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714531851 RCW 295 §303 Rist, R. (1994). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 545–557). Sage. Rivero, R., de M., Yañez, T., & Hurtado, C. (2019). Preparación para ejercer un liderazgo efectivo en Chile: Estudio de opinión a directores a partir del Marco para la Buena Dirección. Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 27(117). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4391 Ross, E., & Walsh, K. (2019). State of the states 2019: Teacher and principal evaluation policy. National Council on Teacher Quality. Sanders, N., Kearney, K., & Vince, S. (2012). Using multiple forms of data in principal evaluations: An overview with examples. WestEd. SCCL 24 §59 Sinnema, C. J., & Robinson, V. M. (2012). Goal setting in principal evaluation: Goal quality and predictors of achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11, 135–167. Sun, M., Youngs, P., Yang, H., Chu, H., & Zhao, Q. (2012). Association of district principal evaluation with learning-centered leadership practice: Evidence from Michigan and Beijing. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24, 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-012-9145-7 Superville, D. R. (2014, May 20). States forge ahead on principal evaluation. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/05/21/32principals_ep.h33.html Tennessee Department of Education. (2019). 2019 school accountability protocol user guide. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/accountability/acct/ acct_protocol_user_guide.pdf Thomas, D. W., Holdaway, E. A., & Ward, K. L. (2000). Policies and practices involved in the evaluation of school principals. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(3), 215–240. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008167130999 Tienken, C. H., Colella, A., Angelillo, C., Fox, M., McCahill, K. R., & Wolfe, A. (2017). Predicting middle level state standardized test results using family and community demographic data. Research in Middle Level Education, 40(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2016.1252304 Utah Admin. Code, R277-533 (2018). Va. Code 15 §22.1 Van der Lans, R. M., van de Grift, W. J. C. M., van Veen, K., & Fokkens-Bruinsma, M. (2016). Once is not enough: Establishing reliability criteria for feedback and evaluation decisions based on classroom observations. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 50, 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.001 Wallace Foundation. (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/The-School-Principal- as-Leader-Guiding-Schools-to-Better-Teaching-and-Learning-2nd-Ed.pdf Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2011). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice ( 6th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714531851 https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4391 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-012-9145-7 https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/05/21/32principals_ep.h33.html https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008167130999 https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2016.1252304 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.001 https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/The-School-Principal-as-Leader-Guiding-Schools-to-Better-Teaching-and-Learning-2nd-Ed.pdf https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/The-School-Principal-as-Leader-Guiding-Schools-to-Better-Teaching-and-Learning-2nd-Ed.pdf Principal Evaluation in the United States 32 West, D. H., Peck, C., & Reitzug, U. C. (2010). Limited control and relentless accountability: Examining historical changes in urban school principal pressure. Journal of School Leadership, 20, 238–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461002000206 W. Va. Code R., 126§142 Wyo. Admin. Rules 29 §3 Williams, S. M. (2015). The future of principal preparation and principal evaluation: Reflections of the current policy context for school leaders. Journal of Research on Leadership Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775115621159 Williams, E., Persaud, G., & Turners, T. (2008). Planning for principal evaluation: Effects on school climate and achievement. Educational Planning, 17(3), 1–11. Wis. Statute 115 §415 Zepeda, S. J., Lanoue, P. D., Price, N. F., & Jimenez, A. M. (2014). Principal evaluation – linking individual and building-level progress: Making the connections and embracing the tensions. School Leadership & Management, 34(4), 324–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928681 About the Authors Sarah R. Nielsen Graduate Student, Utah State University sarah.nielsen@usu.edu ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7478-7200 Sarah Nielsen is a doctoral student studying Instructional Leadership at Utah State University. She has done research on social studies teachers and is interested in the effects of educational policies on leadership and schools. Alyson L. Lavigne Assistant Professor, Utah State University alyson.lavigne@usu.edu ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2763-4551 Alyson Lavigne is an Assistant Professor of Instructional Leadership at Utah State University. Using her training as an educational psychologist and classroom researcher, her work explores teacher supervision, evaluation, and retention, and student, teacher, and leader dynamics and practices, particularly in schools that serve linguistically and culturally div erse learners. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461002000206 https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775115621159 https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928681 mailto:sarah.nielsen@usu.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7478-7200 mailto:alyson.lavigne@usu.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2763-4551 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 33 education policy analysis archives Volume 28 Number 143 September 28, 2020 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, the changes are identified, and the same license applies to the derivative work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank, SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). Please send errata notes to Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter feed @epaa_aape. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ http://www.doaj.org/ mailto:audrey.beardsley@asu.edu https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE Principal Evaluation in the United States 34 education policy analysis archives editorial board Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University) Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: Melanie Bertrand, David Carlson, Lauren Harris, Danah Henriksen, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Daniel Liou, Scott Marley, Molly Ott, Iveta Silova (Arizona State University) Madelaine Adelman Arizona State University Amy Garrett Dikkers University of North Carolina, Wilmington Gloria M. Rodriguez University of California, Davis Cristina Alfaro San Diego State University Gene V Glass Arizona State University R. Anthony Rolle University of Houston Gary Anderson New York University Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz A. G. Rud Washington State University Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Jacob P. K. Gross University of Louisville Patricia Sánchez University of University of Texas, San Antonio Jeff Bale University of Toronto, Canada Eric M. Haas WestEd Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley Aaron Benavot SUNY Albany Julian Vasquez Heilig California State University, Sacramento Jack Schneider University of Massachusetts Lowell David C. Berliner Arizona State University Henry Braun Boston College Kimberly Kappler Hewitt University of North Carolina Greensboro Noah Sobe Loyola University Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Aimee Howley Ohio University Nelly P. Stromquist University of Maryland Arnold Danzig San Jose State University Steve Klees University of Maryland Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo Benjamin Superfine University of Illinois, Chicago Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Jessica Nina Lester Indiana University Adai Tefera Virginia Commonwealth University Elizabeth H. DeBray University of Georgia Amanda E. Lewis University of Illinois, Chicago A. Chris Torres Michigan State University David E. DeMatthews University of Texas at Austin Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana University Tina Trujillo University of California, Berkeley Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy Christopher Lubienski Indiana University Federico R. Waitoller University of Illinois, Chicago John Diamond University of Wisconsin, Madison Sarah Lubienski Indiana University Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut Matthew Di Carlo Albert Shanker Institute William J. Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Sherman Dorn Arizona State University Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Michael J. Dumas University of California, Berkeley Julianne Moss Deakin University, Australia Terrence G. Wiley Center for Applied Linguistics Kathy Escamilla University of Colorado, Boulder Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio John Willinsky Stanford University Yariv Feniger Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Eric Parsons University of Missouri-Columbia Jennifer R. Wolgemuth University of South Florida Melissa Lynn Freeman Adams State College Amanda U. Potterton University of Kentucky Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate University Rachael Gabriel University of Connecticut Susan L. Robertson Bristol University Miri Yemini Tel Aviv University, Israel Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 143 35 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editoras Coordenadores: Marcia Pletsch, Sandra Regina Sales (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro) Editores Associadas: Andréa Barbosa Gouveia (Universidade Federal do Paraná), Kaizo Iwakami Beltrao (EBAPE/FGVl), Sheizi Calheira de Freitas (Federal University of Bahia), Maria Margarida Machado (Federal University of Goiás / Universidade Federal de Goiás), Gilberto José Miranda, (Universidade Federal de Uberlândia) Almerindo Afonso Universidade do Minho Portugal Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil José Augusto Pacheco Universidade do Minho, Portugal Rosanna Maria Barros Sá Universidade do Algarve Portugal Regina Célia Linhares Hostins Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Brasil Jane Paiva Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Maria Helena Bonilla Universidade Federal da Bahia Brasil Alfredo Macedo Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Brasil Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil Alice Casimiro Lopes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Jader Janer Moreira Lopes Universidade Federal Fluminense e Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona Portugal Suzana Feldens Schwertner Centro Universitário Univates Brasil Debora Nunes Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil Lílian do Valle Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Geovana Mendonça Lunardi Mendes Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina Alda Junqueira Marin Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brasil Alfredo Veiga-Neto Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Flávia Miller Naethe Motta Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Dalila Andrade Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil Principal Evaluation in the United States 36 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Coordinador (Español / Latinoamérica): Ignacio Barrenechea, Axel Rivas (Universidad de San Andrés Editor Coordinador (Español / Norteamérica): Armando Alcántara Santuario (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México) Editor Coordinador (Español / España): Antonio Luzon (Universidad de Granada) Editores Asociados: Felicitas Acosta (Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento), Jason Beech ( Universidad de San Andrés), Angelica Buendia, (Metropolitan Autonomous University), Alejandra Falabella (Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile), Veronica Gottau (Universidad Torcuato Di Tella), Carolina Guzmán-Valenzuela (Universidade de Chile), Cesar Lorenzo Rodriguez Uribe (Universidad Marista de Guadalajara María Teresa Martín Palomo (University of Almería), María Fernández Mellizo-Soto (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Tiburcio Moreno (Autonomous Metropolitan University-Cuajimalpa Unit), José Luis Ramírez, (Universidad de Sonora), Maria Veronica Santelices (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile Ana María García de Fanelli Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES) CONICET, Argentina Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México Juan Carlos González Faraco Universidad de Huelva, España José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España María Clemente Linuesa Universidad de Salamanca, España Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Jaume Martínez Bonafé Universitat de València, España José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Antonio Bolívar Boitia Universidad de Granada, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Jurjo Torres Santomé, Universidad de la Coruña, España José Joaquín Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile María Guadalupe Olivier Tellez, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, México Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Miguel Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Ernesto Treviño Ronzón Universidad Veracruzana, México Gabriela de la Cruz Flores Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Mónica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Ernesto Treviño Villarreal Universidad Diego Portales Santiago, Chile Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves Instituto para la Investigación Educativa y el Desarrollo Pedagógico (IDEP) Antoni Verger Planells Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV, México José Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España Catalina Wainerman Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, México Juan Carlos Yáñez Velazco Universidad de Colima, México javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/819') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/820') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/4276') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/1609') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/825') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/797') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/823') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/798') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/555') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/814') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/2703') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/801') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/826') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/802') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/3264') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/804')