1. Emerging Trends in Principal Evaluation: The Changing Policy Landscape Copyright © 20XX American Institutes for Research. All rights reserved. Matthew Clifford, Ph.D. Developing Leaders for Our Nation’s Schools September 26, 2013

2. American Institutes for Research (AIR) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization focused on the development of rigorous social and behavioral sciences research and the application of research to issues affecting the education, health, and work of youth and adults, particularly the disadvantaged.. American Institutes for Research: Our Emphasis 2

3. The mission of the Center on Great Teachers and Leaders (GTL Center) is to foster the capacity of vibrant networks of practitioners, researchers, innovators, and experts to build and sustain a seamless system of support for great teachers and leaders for every school in every state in the nation. Center on Great Teachers and Leaders Mission 3

4. Comprehensive Centers Program 2012–2017 Award Cycle 4

5. Why Principals Matter: Research on Influence 5 Leadership is the second most influential school-level factor in student learning Principals are a strong influence on teachers professional decisions Principals set school improvement and program implementation. Principals influence policy success.

6. Why Principals Matter: Policy Implementation 6 Common Core State Standards College and Career Readiness Teacher Evaluation Financial Challenges School Security Social and Emotional Learning

7. 7 Common Core State Standards College and Career Readiness Teacher Evaluation Financial Challenges School Security Social and Emotional Learning School Principals will determine whether multiple policy agendas take hold. --Council of Chief State Officers Successful policy implementation is contingent upon the understanding and actions of school principals. -- Spillane, Reiser & Reimer Why Principals Matter: Policy Implementation

8. 8 The Current State of Principal Evaluation Emphasizes compliance, not learning; Does not influence principals’ work; Holds principals accountable to outcomes they do not control; Poorly aligns with state/national standards; Is not consistently administered; and Is impractical, given supervisor and school leader demands on time. Clifford & Ross, 2012; Goldring et al., 2007; NAESP & NASSP, 2012; NAESP, 2013 The current evaluation system in my district is no system at all. -- Principal With principal evaluation, we are moving from 0 to 100 miles per hour -- State superintendent Principal Evaluation: The National Education Policy Landscape

9. 9 Coherent Improving the principal workforce “pipeline” with better performance evaluations Master principal evaluation Current principal evaluation Pre-service evaluation Teacher-leader evaluation

10. 10 Principal Evaluation: The National Education Policy Landscape 50 states have adopted or adapted ISLLC 2008 AK MT WY ID WA OR NV UT CA AZ ND SD NE CO NM TX OK KS AR LA MO IA MN WI IL IN KY TN MS AL GA FL SC NC VA WV OH MI NY PA MD DE NJ CT RI MA ME VT NH HI

11. 11 Principal Evaluation: The National Education Policy Landscape 50 states have passed legislation or created administrative rules to improve principal evaluation AK MT WY ID WA OR NV UT CA AZ ND SD NE CO NM TX OK KS AR LA MO IA MN WI IL IN KY TN MS AL GA FL SC NC VA WV OH MI NY PA MD DE NJ CT RI MA ME VT NH HI Source: Jacques, Clifford & Hornung, 2012

12. 12 6 states require principals to demonstrate effectiveness in order to renew their licenses Source: Briggs, et al. (2013) Principal Evaluation: The National Education Policy Landscape

13. 13 22 states collection of post- preparation program job placement data Source: Briggs, et al. (2013) Principal Evaluation: The National Education Policy Landscape

14. 14 Principal Evaluation: Challenges Raised by States and Districts Three to Highlight 1.The approach toward principal evaluation 2.Renegotiating the role of states and districts for educator support 3.Measurement development and diversification

15. 15 Technical Problems Can be fixed by experts and by implementation of best practices. Easily identified and quickly solved. Adaptive Challenges Disrupt organizational relationships Require new ways of working Departs from past practices Solutions involve experiments, innovations and new learning. Can take longer to implement.  “I[T]he single most common source of leadership failure we’ve been able to identify…is that people, especially those in positions of authority, treat adaptive challenges like technical problems.”  — Heifetz & Linsky (2002) Principal Evaluation Challenge 1: The Approach

16. Renegotiating state and district roles for principal and other educator evaluation. Race to the Top: States implementing teacher and principal evaluation systems despite challenges. (Government Accounting Office, 2013) Preparing a pipeline of effective principals: A legislative approach. (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2012) State policies on principal evaluation: A changing landscape. (Jacques, Clifford & Hornung, 2012) 16 Principal Evaluation Challenge 2: Renegotiating the Roles

17. 17 State-level System Elective State System (Hybrid) District System with State Parameters State Oversight Local Control Clifford, Hansen & Wraight,2011; General Accounting Office, 2013 Principal Evaluation Challenge 2: Renegotiating the Roles

18. 18 Factors for Selecting Approach History of state-district relationships Legislative requirements for monitoring Purpose of system Use of data Presence of existing evaluation systems Principal Evaluation Challenge 2: Renegotiating the Roles

19. 19 Direct OutcomesIndirect Outcomes Leadership Practice School Conditions Community Contexts Teacher Effectiveness Instructional Quality Student Learning Clifford, Sherratt & Fetters, 2012 available at www.educatortalent.orgwww.educatortalent.org Principal Evaluation Challenge 3: Measurement Development and Diversification

20. 20 Direct OutcomesIndirect Outcomes Leadership Practice School Conditions Community Contexts Teacher Effectiveness Instructional Quality Student Learning Principal Evaluation Challenge 3: Measurement Development and Diversification Outcomes MeasuresPractice Measures

21. 21 Principal Evaluation Challenge 3: Measurement Development and Diversification Factors to Consider in Measures Selection 1.Reliability 2.Validity 3.Utility 4.Fidelity and Support 5.Cost

22. 22 Principal Evaluation Challenge 3: Measurement Development and Diversification Was (and often still is)….

23. 23 Principal Evaluation Challenge 3: Measurement Development and Diversification Is moving toward…

24. 24 Principal Evaluation Challenge 3: Measurement Development and Diversification DomainPrincipal Measures Examples from the Field Practice Observations 360 degree and other surveys Professional learning and progress reports Artifact review Instructional quality Student surveys School audits School Conditions School climate survey School walk-throughs or instructional rounds results School improvement plan reports Student Learning and Conditions School-level SLO attainment School-level value added measures Graduation rates Social-emotional learning measures

25. 25 Questions and Closing Remarks

26. Advancing state efforts to grow, respect, and retain great teachers and leaders for all students Presenter Name Matthew Clifford mclifford@air.org 630-689-8017 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Washington, DC 20007-3835 877-322-8700 www.gtlcenter.org gtlcenter@air.org 26