Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorSaatcioglu, Argun
dc.contributor.authorGray, James Joseph
dc.date.accessioned2010-10-03T04:41:36Z
dc.date.available2010-10-03T04:41:36Z
dc.date.issued2010-04-20
dc.date.submitted2010
dc.identifier.otherhttp://dissertations.umi.com/ku:10785
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/6765
dc.description.abstractAbstract The purpose of this study was to answer the question: Are principals good at identifying effective teachers? Some studies have suggested they are not, but the evidence is not consistent. It is troubling that research results are inconsistent regarding principals' abilities to identify effective teachers. Why is there a disconnect between principals' evaluations of teachers and student gain scores - the operational definition of effective teachers? One would think principals would be good at identifying effective teachers, given that the expectation for hiring, developing, and evaluating teachers is a major facet of their responsibilities. This inconsistency suggests there could be a methodological issue. In other words, the method used for determining a principal's ability to identify effective teachers may be leading to these mixed findings. Perhaps the metric commonly used to measure teacher effectiveness is incompatible with identifying effective teachers. Could using a newer type of standardized test as the metric along with a more focused method of data analysis lead to consistent positive correlations between principal ratings and teacher effectiveness? This study examined the relation between principals' identification of effective teachers and the student gain scores from Fall and Spring Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) - computer-adaptive tests for reading, mathematics, and language usage developed by Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA, 2006). This study fitted individual level data to a value-added model to estimate teacher effects on students' 06-07 MAP gain scores and then ran subsequent regression analyses to estimate principals' ranking effects on teachers' average Spring 07 MAP scores, on teachers' average 06-07 MAP gain scores, and on teachers' value-added effects on students' 06-07 MAP gain scores. The findings showed that principals can identify their effective math teachers but they can't identify their effective communications and English teachers. Principals' rankings of teachers tend to correlate more with math teachers than communications and English teachers regarding student gain scores and teachers' value-added to student gain score
dc.format.extent66 pages
dc.language.isoEN
dc.publisherUniversity of Kansas
dc.rightsThis item is protected by copyright and unless otherwise specified the copyright of this thesis/dissertation is held by the author.
dc.subjectEducation
dc.subjectAdministration
dc.subjectEducational evaluation
dc.subjectEducation policy
dc.subjectEffective
dc.subjectEvaluation
dc.subjectPrincipal
dc.subjectRatings
dc.subjectTeacher
dc.subjectValue-added
dc.titleAre Principals Good at Identifying Effective Teachers? A Comparison of Teachers' Principal Ratings and Residual Gain on Standardized Tests
dc.typeDissertation
dc.contributor.cmtememberSaatcioglu, Argun
dc.contributor.cmtememberCrawford, George
dc.contributor.cmtememberEbmeier, Howard
dc.contributor.cmtememberImber, Michael
dc.contributor.cmtememberMahlios, Marc
dc.thesis.degreeDisciplineEducational Leadership and Policy Studies
dc.thesis.degreeLevelEd.D.
kusw.oastatusna
kusw.oapolicyThis item does not meet KU Open Access policy criteria.
kusw.bibid7078739
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record