Consistency of Principal Ratings by Central Office Administration Across Various Job Related Factors

Abstract

Given the emphasis placed on strong leadership as a condition for high performing schools, identifying and assessing the characteristics of effective school leaders have become essential tasks for local jurisdictions, state departments of education, and the federal government. However, many forms of appraisal have failed to assess the daily work of principals. The conventional form of evaluation in the field of educational leadership has focused on a process whereby a central office administrator, traditionally the direct supervisor, rates principals on some form of evaluation instrument. Among the criticisms of this process is the lack of input from multiple sources. The purpose of this study was to investigate the ratings of principals utilizing multiple perspectives and raters. The study sought to examine the consistency to which central office administrators evaluate principals across a number of job related responsibilities. For this study, six central office administrators employed by a mid to large urban school district were asked to rate 29 building principals in the same district. Principals were rated on eleven leadership responsibilities associated with student achievement using a 5 point Likert scale. Rater agreement was established through the use of a one-way ANOVA and Pearson's Correlation Coefficient. Measures of central tendency and variation were also calculated. Results indicate central office administrators in this study varied significantly in their ratings of principals across job related responsibilities. The magnitude of variation was indicative of an inadequate level of agreement regarding the evaluation of principal performance. This research has important implications for the evaluative process of educational leadership. If central office administrators vary considerably in terms of their ratings of principals, the whole notion of accurate evaluations of principals from central office administration is called into question. Recommendations for future research, as well as alternative appraisal processes are included.