Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare to perceptions of California school principals and their evaluators relative to: (1) the purpose for evaluating principals; (2) the rating of performance competencies; (3) the preferred process steps for evaluation; (4) sources of information used to evaluate principals; (5) ranking major performance areas; and (6) informal expectations principals must meet. In this descriptive study a survey of 354 administrators was conducted. Participants from unified school districts (K-12) were drawn through a stratified random sampling procedure. There were 295 returns constituting 83% of the sample. Treatment of the data was primarily done by computing frequency counts of responses and converting them to percentages. A chi-square test was used to compare perceptions related to the purpose(s) of principal evaluations. In the section regarding performance competencies and analysis of variance was performed to determine if significant differences in the ratings by sample groups was present. A Spearman Rank Order Correlation was used to compare paired sample group rankings of evaluation performance areas. The findings of the study indicate that all sample groups believe the current purpose for evaluating principals is to provide an official record of performance. There was no strong consensus about the desired purpose. Most administrators believe that principals should be evaluated annually, based upon three or more meetings with the evaluator. Such evaluations should be based upon a mix of district developed and principal written objectives. Feedback to principals needs to be given in written and oral form. All sample groups rate instructional leadership competencies as most important overall, with interpersonal relations skills a close second. In looking at informal expectations it is important that principals do not surprise superintendents with site-level problems. Principals and evaluators agree that the primary source of information for these evaluations should be the principal. In ranking major performance areas, there is a strong correlation between principals and evaluators. The conclusions from this study are that principals and their evaluators agree on the current organizational purpose for evaluating principals, but show no consensus on a desired purpose. There is general agreement on the process steps for evaluating principals. Instructional leadership is perceived as the most important competency area for principals. There are many informal expectations of principals. Information from the principal should be the primary basis for evaluations. Principals and evaluators agree on which major performance areas are most important.