University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The leadership skills, knowledge, and training required of high school principals to effectively evaluate classroom teachers

(USC Thesis Other)

The leadership skills, knowledge, and training required of high school principals to effectively evaluate classroom teachers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: LEADERSHIP SKILLS 1

THE LEADERSHIP SKILLS, KNOWLEDGE, AND TRAINING REQUIRED OF HIGH
SCHOOL PRINCIPALS TO EFFECTIVELY EVALUATE CLASSROOM TEACHERS

by

Steven James

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACTULY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2014

Copyright 2014 Steven James
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 2

Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to George Nusser, a person through a random act of kindness
was tested and entered into the National Bone Marrow Registry. When George was called and
informed that he was a match for an individual out west, without hesitation he agreed to donate
his stem cells and entered into the week-long process. Those stem cells were given to my 14-
year-old daughter, Laura, on February 6, 2004, and the bone marrow transplant saved my
daughter’s life.
I would also like to dedicate this dissertation to all of the doctors and nurses who choose
to work with cancer patients, especially those who work with children. Dr. Rosenthal and your
team at the City of Hope are absolutely amazing, and Ruthie and I can never thank you enough.
To the caregivers who work tirelessly every day of the week to keep their loved ones
comfortable by meeting their every want and need.
I want to also dedicate this dissertation to my wife, Ruthie, who has stood beside me for
over 30 years. Ruthie, you are the love of my life, best friend, and the most amazing mother to
our children. Finally, to my two wonderful children, Laura and Eric, who make me proud every
day. Love you all unconditionally . . .
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 3

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge all of those whose support and encouragement made this
long journey possible. A very special acknowledgement goes to Howard and Rebecca Slusher,
whose generosity made it possible for me to enter into the doctoral program at the University of
Southern California. Howard your passion for higher education and our discussions during the
process really meant a lot to me as you took time out of your extremely busy schedule for me.
I want to acknowledge Dr. Rudy Castruita, my dissertation chair, for all of the wisdom,
experience, and guidance he provided through the many hours he spent with our thematic group
and me. Dr. C, you have inspired us to never look for the easy way out and never make a
decision that is bad for children. To my committee members, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. John
Roach, thank you for being an extremely important part of the process. Your feedback has been
invaluable.
I want to thank all of the principals who agreed to participate in my research study and
took time out of their extremely long and busy work schedules to answer the surveys and
interview questions.
Finally, I want to thank our original Tuesday cohort, who began this journey together and
when the work seemed insurmountable we inspired each other to push through, and we all
persevered.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 4

Table of Contents
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Introduction 8
Background of the Problem 10
Statement of the Problem 12
Purpose of the Study 14
Research Questions 14
Significance of the Study 14
Limitations 15
Delimitations 16
Definition of Terms 16
Organization of the Study 17
Chapter Two: Literature Review 19
Introduction 19
The Changing Role of the Principal 21
Effective Principal Leadership 22
Review of Teacher Evaluations 25
Knowledge Required of a Principal to be an Effective Evaluator 28
Research-Based Evaluation 29
Value-Added 31
Frequency 33
Key Elements 34
Obstacles and Barriers 34
Professional Development 36
Theory 38
Social Cognitive Theory 38
Summary 39
Chapter Three: Methodology 42
Introduction 42
Research Questions 43
Research Design 43
Methodology 44
Quantitative Methodology 45
Qualitative Methodology 45
Sample and Population 45
Instrumentation 46
Qualitative Instrument 46
Quantitative Instrument 46
Data Collection 47
Data Analysis 48
Validity and Reliability 49
Ethical Considerations 49
Summary 50
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 5

Chapter Four: Results 51
Background 51
Quantitative Demographic Data 52
Qualitative Demographic Data 54
Purpose 54
Coding of Data 55
Guiding Questions 57
Research Question One 57
Quantitative Data 57
Qualitative Data 60
Research Question Two 63
Qualitative Data 68
Research Question Three 71
Research Question Four 74
Qualitative Data 80
Research Question Summaries 81
Question #1 81
Question #2 82
Question #3 83
Question #4 84
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Implications 86
Introduction 86
Statement of the Problem 87
Purpose of the Study 88
Research Questions 88
Methodology 88
Summary of Findings 89
Limitation of the Study 91
Implications for Practice 92
Recommendations for Future Research 92
Conclusions 93
References 95
Appendix A 100
Appendix B 103
Appendix C 111
Appendix D 112

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 6

List of Tables
Table 1: Qualitative and quantitative data analysis plan 48
Table 2: Summary demographic data on survey participants gender (n =30) 52
Table 3: Tenure as a high school principal 52
Table 4: Respondents school site student population 53
Table 5: Surveyed principals highest level of education attained 53
Table 6: Demographics of the individual principals interviewed (n =5) 54
Table 7: Principals’ responses to content knowledge and instructional 58
best practices (n =30)

Table 8: Principals’ responses to the use of a co-evaluator and/or a secondary 59
evaluator (n = 30)

Table 9: Principals’ initial response to needing to be a content specialist and 62
the use of a co-evaluator

Table 10: Principals’ responses to pre/post conferences, timely feedback, and 64
teacher reflection (n = 30)

Table 11: Principals’ responses to the use of the CSTP, multiple measures, and 66
Multiple observations (n = 30)

Table 12: Comparison of a standards-based protocol and a scripted 67
nonstandards-based protocol (n = 30)

Table 13: Comparison of training received as an administrator to training 75
received as a principal in their current position (n = 30)

Table 14: Themes from the open-ended survey response question. What type of 78
professional development did you receive in the area of teacher
evaluation that you found most effective? (n = 27)

Table 15: Themes from the open-ended survey response question. What type of 79
professional development would you like to attend that would assist you
in better evaluating all of your classroom teachers? (n = 26)
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 7

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore what abilities are required for a principal to be an
effective evaluator of classroom teachers, and what skills, knowledge, and training is required to
reach this level of competency. The study was narrowed and was designed to answer the
following questions: (a) What requisite knowledge of the content standards must a principal have
to effectively evaluate classroom teachers? (b) Would using the California Standards for the
Teaching Profession (CSTP) be an effective evaluation tool and protocol for evaluating
classroom teachers, (c) What strategies can be used by a principal to evaluate classroom
teachers? and (d) What are the key elements—if any—of an effective professional development
program that can assist a principal to effectively evaluate classroom teachers? This study
implemented a mixed-methods approach, in which 30 high school principals in Southern
California completed a survey, and five of the principals also agreed to take part in a semi-
structured interview. Through the process of triangulation, the findings indicate that the
principals do not believe they need to be content specialists to effectively evaluate their
classroom teachers, that having a basic knowledge of the standards is sufficient. The principals
identified that the use of a standards-based teacher evaluation protocol was an effective system
because it is aligned with the standards for the teaching profession. The principals identified the
most effective strategies for improving teacher performance as increasing the frequency of
classroom walk-throughs, providing accurate and timely feedback, and using teacher reflection
during post-observation conferences. To improve the cognitive skills of the principals in the area
of teacher evaluation, districts need to provide ongoing professional development that is directed
toward the evaluation process used by the school district.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 8

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
In the twenty-first century, the focus of education is on the continued improvement of our
schools. This focus situates the principal as the catalyst for improving instructional practices in
the classroom. The evaluation of certificated employees—especially classroom teachers—has
been a long-standing problem for the state of California (Kersten & Israel, 2005). When new
legislation is written—like the Stull Bill, or the standards for the teaching profession in the State
of California—it requires an accountability tool and a system to be put into place that will
effectively evaluate classroom teachers (Price, 1973; Whitaker, Snyder, & Freeman, 2001).
According to the research, such legislation requires districts to work closely with their local
teachers’ association for approval of a system that can be used with its bargaining members.
Since the USSR’s Sputnik launch in the 1950s, the United States has undertaken
numerous reform acts, identifying that the evaluation process must place teacher accountability
at the forefront if we are going to raise student achievement in the classroom (Whitaker et al.,
2001). In 1971, the State of California passed Assembly Bill 293. This legislation would be
named after its primary author as the Stull Bill (Price, 1973). The Stull Bill stipulated that every
school district in the State of California establish a standardized system for evaluating
certificated employees, which includes teachers, counselors, and site administrators (Price, 1973).
But because every school district throughout the state of California uses its own system to
evaluate teachers, the process has achieved little continuity. A highly effective teacher in one
district could be documented as marginal in a neighboring district (Kersten & Israel, 2005).
However, many districts use the Stull Bill approach, which requires goals and objectives to be
written by the certificated employee with approval from the principal. The teacher is then
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 9

evaluated thorough classroom observations and how well he or she works at attaining his or her
specific goals (Price, 1973).
The main purpose of the Stull Bill was to develop a system that required principals to
evaluate all of his or her certificated staff equally (Price, 1973). The legislation relies on
classroom observations along with pre- and post-meetings, where discussion takes place about
what goals and objectives the teacher will be evaluated on, and then and how successfully he or
she accomplished these goals during observations (Price, 1973).
In the early 1980s, the Secretary of Education was asked to put together a commission to
evaluate the educational system in the United States. A major task of the commission was to
identify how our educational system compares to those in other advanced nations. In 1983, the
commission reported its findings in a report from The National Commission on Excellence in
Education known as A Nation at Risk, a detailed account of the state of education in the United
States. This report identified four very important aspects of the educational system that were
flawed: content, expectations, time, and teaching (The National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983). The commission concluded that highly qualified teachers were not entering the
field of K–12 education, and that most teachers in the field at the time of the report had scored in
the bottom 25% of their college graduating classes.
In January of 1997, the state legislature in California approved standards for the teaching
profession that could be used by all school districts in the state. These standards were identified
through a 4-year statewide taskforce that centered on the concerns, issues, and dilemmas that
surrounded the effective evaluation of certificated employees (Whitaker et al., 2001). Two of the
key elements of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) are the
implementation of a Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment program (BTSA) and the
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 10

formation of the Peer Assistance Review program (PAR) to provide a structured system to assist
veteran teachers who are struggling in the classroom (Whitaker et al., 2001).
School districts within the State of California have adopted the California Standards for
the Teaching Profession (CSTP), and their teachers are evaluated on the six specific goals
outlined in the standards (Whitaker et al., 2001). The CSTP was written by a task force in the
late 1990’s that specifically described the standards by which classroom teachers would be
evaluated (Whitaker et al., 2001).
In 2001, No Child Left Behind legislation (NCLB) was passed by both houses of
Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush. A major emphasis of the legislation
was the recruitment and hiring of highly qualified teachers, principals, and other administrators,
as defined in Title II of the NCLB legislation (NCLB, 2001). A new evaluation protocol has
surfaced in recent years: the value-added accountability model now allows student test scores to
be considered part of a teacher’s individual evaluation (Everson, Feinauer, & Sudweeks, 2013).
In many states across the nation, 30 to 50% of a teacher’s evaluation is based on student
standardized test scores. In turn, most principals throughout the nation are evaluated on how the
school scores as a whole using the same standardized assessments (Everson et al., 2013).
The problem with the evaluation system currently in use throughout the State of
California is that it has too many evaluation tools, and the principals come from various
educational backgrounds. Without professional development around effective teacher evaluation,
marginal teachers can gain permanent tenure within a school district.
Background of the Problem
In the 1960s, reform centered on locating and hiring better teacher candidates,
restructuring teacher training programs, and developing accountability measures to evaluate a
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 11

teacher’s performance in the classroom was initiated, as part of an extended response to the
USSR’s launch of Sputnik (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Despite the American public
wanting to see improved instruction and highly qualified teachers in the classroom, early reform
initiatives did not succeed, and ended in the late 1960s (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Early
failures were due to the difficulty of changing the culture of the educational system, which had
long allowed for the autonomy of the isolationist teacher, and principals refusing to change daily
routines and practices (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003).
The Stull Bill legislation places accountability on the principal to effectively evaluate
teachers per the guidelines stated within the legislation, and can easily expose the principals’
lack of leadership skills and educational experience. The Stull Bill is still the main legislation in
the State of California, identifying the guidelines required for the evaluation of certificated
employees within each California school district. However, the legislation does not outline the
professional development needed by a principal to effectively carry out the provisions it details
(Price, 1973).
The National Commission on Excellence in Education’s report, A Nation at Risk,
identified that teacher education programs relied too heavily on teaching methodology and less
on grade-level content. The commission’s report omitted all language on teacher evaluation and
failed to address what districts should implement to effectively evaluate their classroom teachers.
Although it also identified that teachers in the United States were not held to the same standards
as teachers of other advanced nations, the report failed to address how school districts were
supposed to go about identifying teachers who were not highly qualified. It also failed to
articulate what kinds of professional development could move such teachers toward mastery.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 12

As detailed in the Stull Bill legislation, the bargaining unit of the certificated employees
must first agree upon the CSTP—and the bargaining units have, in fact, used the CSTP as a
bargaining tool to get further concessions during negotiations. With language added to the CSTP
stipulating that the evaluation portion of the CSTP must be negotiated by the certificated
bargaining unit, to date many districts are not using the CSTP as their evaluation tool (Whitaker
et al., 2001). However, the BTSA and PAR programs outlined in the CSTP have become very
successful tools in helping new teachers in the profession and in assisting permanent teachers by
getting them the assistance they need to meet required minimal standards within their own
districts (Whitaker et al., 2001).
The NCLB (2001) legislation proclaimed that school districts would provide the needed
professional development to ensure that their teachers and administrators were highly qualified
and this is still a requirement today. However, the NCLB legislation did not outline what
professional development was required for administrators, and no training was provided in how
to effectively evaluate certificated employees. Moreover, the major legislation and commission
reports on education have failed to outline what skills, knowledge, and training administrators
need to effectively evaluate their certificated staff; the legislation simply states that a principal
needs professional development. Considering that educational reform has enumerated many
ways to evaluate teachers, neither the legislation nor the reform acts identifies what leadership
characteristics a principal must possess to be an effective evaluator of classroom teachers
(Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).
Statement of the Problem
Excellence in the classroom begins with highly qualified teachers with extensive
background knowledge of the content they teach. For many years, teachers worked in isolation,
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 13

with no accountability to their principals, who visited classrooms infrequently throughout the
school year (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Early reform acts in the 1960s required school
districts to develop accountability measures to ensure that students were receiving an appropriate
education. Unfortunately, principals were locked into a heavy routine of meetings and paperwork,
and these early accountability reforms failed (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003).
Later reforms have brought accountability measures to the classrooms, but principals still
have not received the required training to effectively evaluate their classroom teachers. Because
many principals are hired from outside districts, emphasis must be placed on training principals
in a given district’s current evaluation system, as the evaluation protocols change from school
district to school district. There has been little reaction by district personnel divisions at the lack
of continuity of evaluations and how they differ from each school site within the same district.
The expectation is that all principals are highly skilled in teacher evaluation, as it is a
prerequisite of their position.
The standards identified by an individual state to allow for a systematic approach to
teacher evaluation must be adhered to by all school districts and should not be a bargaining tool
wielded by the school district teachers associations and unions to get further concessions during
a negotiation year. Enforcing standards for the teaching profession is an effective practice that
can assist struggling teachers and can be a useful tool for identifying future teacher leaders at a
school site.
This study will explore the leadership skills a principal needs to effectively evaluate
classroom teachers, whether content knowledge is requisite for a principal to effectively evaluate
teachers, and what professional development is needed for a principal to design and implement
an evaluation system and protocol at the high school level.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 14

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore what abilities are required for a principal to be
an effective evaluator of certificated classroom teachers, and what skills, knowledge and training
they need to gain this level of competency in order to identify and document highly qualified and
marginal classroom teachers. In addition, this study asked: how are current highly successful
principals evaluating their classroom teachers and will the standards for the teaching profession
assist a principal with this process?
A mixed-methods study was conducted, in which the decisions and experiences of high
school principals from Southern California school districts were evaluated and explored through
survey and individual interviews. In addition, current existing data was used to identify existing
school districts that have designed and implemented a successful evaluation system and protocol.
Research Questions
The following questions guided this research study:
1. What requisite knowledge of the content standards must a principal have to
effectively evaluate classroom teachers?
2. Would using the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) be an
effective evaluation tool and protocol for evaluating classroom teachers?
3. What strategies can be used by a principal to evaluate classroom teachers?
4. What are the key elements—if any—of an effective professional development
program that can assist a principal to effectively evaluate classroom teachers?
Significance of the Study
School principals are responsible for the daily operations of a school campus and often
find themselves engrossed in the daily demands of on-site and district meetings, which leave
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 15

little time to get into classrooms and observe classroom instruction. This study will explore
evaluation protocols and systems that are used by successful districts and principals to document
the performance of classroom teachers. The information gathered through this study could be
used by a district office to develop criteria for an evaluation tool that properly assesses classroom
teachers. The CSTP identify six specific standards and 32 competencies that categorize what
good instruction entails in the classroom.
The findings of this study have the potential to lead to the development of a systematic
protocol that will assist principals in gaining the skills, knowledge, and training that will make
them more effective in evaluating classroom teachers. A systematic approach to evaluation will
lead to improved instruction in the classroom, which will have a direct correlation with student
achievement, because all teachers will be evaluated on the same standards and competencies.
This systematic approach will allow principals to quickly identify teachers who need further
assistance with their instructional design and delivery of their daily lessons.
Limitations
The study may be impacted by the following limitations:
1. The availability of professional development research provided to principals in the
area of teacher evaluation.
2. The ability to gain access to principals from several districts.
3. The ability or willingness of a principal to provide accurate information.
4. The ability to locate a district using the CSTP as part of its evaluation of classroom
teachers.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 16

Delimitations
This study may be constrained by the following delimitations:
The federal and state governments have given local control of teacher evaluations to
district offices and their bargaining groups, thus an effective research-based evaluation protocol
and system could be difficult to locate.
Definition of Terms
Accountability: The obligation of an individual or organization to account for its
activities and accept responsibility for its actions (Catano & Stronge, 2006).
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA): A program that provides
support to new teachers entering the field of education. The BTSA program is a component of
the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (Whitaker et al., 2001).
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP): Six standards designed by the
California Commission for Teaching Credentialing, identified as the standards for serving and
supporting professional educators in fulfilling their professional roles and responsibilities—
from preservice teacher to experienced practitioner (CTC, 2009).
The National Commission on Excellence in Education: This commission studied the
American Educational System in the early 1980s and wrote a report titled A Nation at Risk, a
document that did not paint a favorable picture of the educational system at the time of its
publishing in 1983 (NCEE, 1983).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The current federal policy requiring all schools that accept
federal funding to meet quantifiable annual measurable goals to ensure that all student subgroups
are closing the achievement gap in mathematics and English language arts (NCLB, 2001).
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 17

Peer Assistance Review Program (PAR): This is a program designed to assist permanent
teachers who are struggling with instruction in the classroom (Whitaker et al., 2001).
Principal: The person charged with the daily operations of an elementary or secondary
school site (NCEE, 1983).
School Board: An entity comprised of elected local officials who write and make
educational policy for their assigned school district (NCEE, 1983).
Sputnik: The Soviet satellite launched in the 1950s that inspired educational reform in the
United States (NCEE, 1983).
Standardized Testing: Assessments that are administered in a specific way to ensure that
all students are being tested equally (Catano & Stronge, 2006).
Stull Bill: California Education Code 44660, which requires all school districts within the
State of California to develop a uniform process for assessing and evaluating all certificated
employees. The Bill was enacted in 1971 (Price, 1973).
Teacher Training Program: College programs that train prospective teachers through
their college coursework or a fifth year, designed specifically for teacher education. Student
teaching or an internship is a requirement for these programs (Whitaker et al., 2001).
Value-Added Accountability: A teacher accountability model that uses student
standardized testing data as part of a teacher’s evaluation (Mathers, Oliva, & Laine, 2008).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One gave an overview of the
importance of having effective protocol and a systematic approach to teacher evaluation. This
section also explained the background of the problem, the statement of the problem, purpose of
the study, research questions, significance of the study, limitations and delimitations of the study,
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 18

and offered a definition of the terms. Chapter Two presents the literature review of current
research in both teacher evaluation and the principal’s role in the evaluation of classroom
teachers. Chapter Three contains the methodology, sample population, instrumentation and
conceptual framework, data collection procedures and methods, and data analysis. Chapter Four
is the report of findings on the research questions and a reflection of the findings. Chapter Five is
the summary of findings, implications for practice, limitations, future research needed, and
conclusions.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 19

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The duties of a principal have changed since the 1960s, when the principal's main role
was to operate and manage the facilities, as well as to attend to the civic duties required of the
local community and school board, as outlined in A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983). Over time, the
principal has become the instructional leader on campus, which requires him or her to improve
instruction by being a content expert in curriculum, instruction, and assessment for all courses
taught on campus (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005; Zerger, 1988). The
principal must still be able to evaluate all staff, prepare a budget and School Plan for Student
Achievement (SPSA), manage the facilities, and mind the civic duties required to build
relationships within the school community (Davis et al., 2005).
Administrators and teachers have become increasingly frustrated with the current systems
of evaluation for classroom teachers (Papay, 2012). And, indeed, these evaluations are high
stakes in that they determine whether a teacher will be granted tenure or have the option for
future promotional opportunities (Weiss & Weiss, 1998). Much of the process criteria was
developed in the 1980s and little has changed, with lecture in a direct instruction format being
the most prevalent pedagogical method and standardized, multiple choice testing driving
instruction in our schools (Weiss & Weiss, 1998).
A current common assessment practice is for teachers to be evaluated based on one
classroom observation rather than on the totality of work completed during the 1-year evaluation
cycle. This format does not paint a true picture of the teacher’s actual teaching ability (Holland,
2005).
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 20

The school reform acts of the 1980s and 1990s brought increased awareness that current
teacher evaluation systems needed to be revamped and more attention given to the evaluation
process, as it had been proved vital in improving teacher quality (Daley & Kim, 2010). The
passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001 brought with it mandates that each state set
minimum standards for the teaching profession. These standards were to define appropriate
teacher quality within their evaluation systems (Daley & Kim, 2010). But, during this period,
teacher unions played a decisive role in shaping policy in the area of teacher evaluation. As a
result of union bargaining agreements, procedures were limited on how evaluations would be
conducted, while granting greater protections to teachers through due process (Daley & Kim,
2010).
The current system available to most principals requires the administrator to rate a
classroom teacher as satisfactory, needs improvement, or unsatisfactory, categories that are both
ambiguous and contrary to the body of research stating that teacher effectiveness is directly
related to raising student achievement (Kane, Taylor, Tyler, & Wooten, 2011). The research has
also identified that in 98% of teacher evaluations, administrators rated their classroom teachers
satisfactory.
As the role of the principal continues to change, it is becoming more evident that
principals need to receive professional development that meets the needs of each principal at the
different stages of his or her career (Davis et al., 2005). Principals must become lifelong learners
of current researched-based educational and instructional practices if they are going to be
successful leaders in twenty-first-century education (Davis et al., 2005). The principal is
responsible for defining the direction of the school, and must possess knowledge of the best
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 21

practices that successful principals have used in order to get to positive outcomes. To date,
professional development for principals has been sparse at best (Orr, 2007).
This mixed-methods study seeks to isolate, analyze, and identify the skills, knowledge,
and training high school principals need to effectively evaluate their classroom teachers. This
study will identify gaps in the existing literature in order to gain further insight and to ascertain
how some principals have become skilled leaders in the area of teacher evaluation. This chapter
addresses the following seven themes: the changing role of the principal, effective principal
leadership, teacher evaluations, and the knowledge required of a principal to be an effective
evaluator, research-based evaluations, obstacles and barriers, and the professional development
required to become an effective evaluator.
The Changing Role of the Principal
With the role of the principal changing, it is becoming far more difficult for principals to
meet the internal and external demands placed on them by educational stakeholders (Catano &
Stronge, 2006). Initially, principals found themselves tending to school operations and the
effective management of the facilities, and had little to do with being instructional leaders
(Catano & Stronge, 2006).
Catano and Stronge (2006) have posited that principals became instructional leaders
when academic programs became their responsibility. To adapt to their new role as instructional
leader, principals must set school goals that have a coherent direction and make meaning of
student and adult learning (Sparks, 2002). The research shows that highly successful principal
instructional leaders spend a great deal of time in the classroom and meet with their teachers on a
regular basis to discuss what they are observing in the classroom. However, what the research
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 22

fails to identify is how these principals are able to make time to do meet these obligations when
an overabundance of other duties prevents them from getting into classrooms.
Former management practices or theories have transformed into instructional leadership
theories; now, principals must meet and interact with all stakeholders in their school community,
and their success and effectiveness is directly correlated to these relationships (Catano & Stronge,
2006). The research of Catano and Stronge (2006) has also argued that a principal who is viewed
as merely a manager is seen as needing control, whereas an instructional leader is perceived as
influential—someone who can foster change. Principals are now required to possess these
attributes upon being hired so they can meet the demands of all stakeholders within their sphere
of influence (Catano & Stronge, 2006). In spite of these findings, however, the research fails to
identify what professional development these newly hired principals received prior to accepting
the position, and how they were able to receive it.
Effective Principal Leadership
The principal plays a vital and critical role in the effectiveness of all students at their site.
Research indicates that students at a highly effective and efficiently operated school have greater
increases in academic success than do their peers at a poorly operated school (Elmore, 2003;
Leithwood, Seashore, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Marzano et al., 2005). The research also
indicates that strong leadership is second only to instruction in school-related factors, which
leads directly to improving student achievement.
Principals must set a positive direction for their school with clear goals about how that
effort can be actualized; work closely with staff to nurture future leaders; and develop the
organization through a collaborative effort that builds around the school’s current culture
(Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Pepper, 2010). Still, many view leaders as strong, charismatic people
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 23

able to persuade others to comply by wielding their strong personality and, if necessary, by
instilling fear (Sparks, 2002).
Marzano et al. (2005) identified two predominant leadership styles: transactional and
transformational leadership. Transactional leadership functions by trading one thing for another,
in other words, by using "quid pro quo" tactics (Marzano et al., 2005 p. 14). Transactional
leadership itself, according to Marzano et al. (2005), has three specific forms: management-by-
exception-passive, management-by-exception-active, and constructive transactional.
Management-by-exception-passive requires the leader to set standards for the organization, but
the leader only reacts to major problems when they occur, and change is not a characteristic of
this form of transactional leadership. Management-by-exception-active also requires that the
leader set standards for the organization, but he or she closely monitors behaviors within the
organization and is so aggressive in his or her leadership, that taking risks is not advised.
Constructive transactional is the most effective of all three, per Marzano et al. (2005), because
the leader is actively involved in all aspects of the organization. These leaders take risks, reward
and acknowledge their employees, and provide feedback when necessary.
Northouse (2007) has also identified transactional leadership as a predominant style of
leadership, but uses contingent reward rather than constructive transactional as his third
leadership style. Contingent reward is identified as a simple exchange process between the leader
and the follower, wherein the leader rewards effort by the follower (Northouse, 2007).
Management-by-exception has a passive and active approach and closely matches the description
offered by Marzano et al. (2005). The research does not identify why Marzano et al. (2005) and
Northouse (2007) identified the management-by-exception passive and active approaches so
closely to one another, while differing on their third finding.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 24

Transformational leadership is identified as the preferred style of leadership because it
has produced the greatest gains and uses the most humanistic approach (Marzano et al., 2005).
Northouse (2007) has also noted an advantage of the transformational style of leadership in that
leaders using such a style work closely with their followers to make them better employees; once
they have observed the full potential of these employees, supervisors can make them into leaders
as well. This style of leadership is mutually beneficial to the leader and the follower, who work
as a team to make the organization better from the inside, out (Elmuti, Minnis, & Abebe, 2005;
Marzano et al., 2005; Northouse, 2007; Pepper, 2010).
Another key aspect or theory of leadership is one of servant leadership, a model in which
the principal leader is not seen as a top-down director, but rather is located in the middle of the
hierarchy so as to be in contact with all aspects of the organization at all times (Marzano et al.,
2005; Northouse, 2007). The servant leader has a direct responsibility to the followers within an
organization who perceive themselves as powerless or disenfranchised and the servant leader
always immediately recognizes and acknowledges them as equal members of their organization
(Northouse, 2007).
Many believe that people are born with leadership skills, and that these skills cannot be
learned. It is quite the contrary. Some leaders may feel they were born with their skills, but at
some time in their life they observed a quality leader or leaders and learned from these
experiences. Developing leadership skills take time, training, and dedication (Elmuti et al., 2005).
Even with all of this abundance of highly regarded research, gaps remain in the
knowledge of how effective principals balance their daily routines with concerted efforts to
move their schools forward. Pepper’s (2010) research suggests that leadership training to
strengthen the skills of all new leaders should be a major component of any passed legislation
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 25

designed around raising student achievement. Highly successful leaders develop and count on
others within their organization to assist with the day-to-day running of a school; be it an
assistant or a teacher leader, one must develop capacity from within to move the organization
forward (Leithwood et al., 2004). Though this statement applies to any successful leader, the
research still does not articulate how to locate these potential teacher leaders and what qualities
they must possess to move forward in leadership positions.
Review of Teacher Evaluations
The literature reveals that, for years, the job of a school principal was to manage the day-
to-day operations of the physical plant and tend to civic responsibilities. However, serving as an
instructional leader whose obligations included evaluating their classroom teachers was not the
priority it is in A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983). A Nation at Risk identified the problems, but did
not give specific mandates or direction on how principals could improve instruction in the
classroom (NCEE, 1983).
The Stull Bill legislation, passed in California in 1971, requires the principal to meet with
his or her teachers and develop goals and objectives centered on the following: student progress,
instructional techniques and strategies used by the teacher, embedding the research-based
curriculum into their lessons, and maintaining a safe and suitable environment for student
learning (Price, 1973). Per this legislation, the principal was moving from manager to
instructional leader—now responsible for identifying the competence of teachers through an
evaluation process, and assisting teachers struggling in the classroom. Price (1973) indicated that
this process would expose not only marginal teachers but also weak principals lacking technical
skill in working with struggling educators.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 26

Being held responsible for evaluating their staff—including classroom teachers—
principals are finding the process to be inherently difficult. This is because the field of education
is a complex world, especially at the high school level, where teachers are credentialed in
specific content areas not usually familiar to the principal (Zerger, 1988). Zerger’s (1988)
research has indicated that principals are required to evaluate teachers on a set of competencies
they are not familiar with because they have either been out of the classroom as a teacher for a
very long time, are credentialed in a different grade level, or are credentialed in an entirely
different subject.
The literature shows that principals spend very little time evaluating teachers because of
time constraints. When they are able to get into the classroom, administrators are likely to rush
through the process (Holland, 2005; Zerger, 1988). To compound the issue, principals hesitate to
be critical of what they have observed because they lack quality time to provide feedback to
teachers about their instructional practices (Holland, 2005; Zerger, 1988). A teacher is usually
evaluated on a single classroom observation—even as the research states that a teacher should be
evaluated on data collected through multiple visits to the classroom throughout the evaluation
timeline (Hill & Grossman, 2013; Holland, 2005; Zerger, 1988).
Once the principal has performed an observation, time must be set aside for a post-
observation conference, in which the data is presented to the teacher and recommendations for
improvement are discussed (Zerger, 1988). The literature addresses how an observation should
be conducted and indicates that administrators need to receive training in how to conduct a
proper evaluation—training that most administrators never receive. However, the previous
research does not identify nor discuss the type of training principals should receive, the scope of
the training required, or who is responsible for arranging this training for the administrator.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 27

For nearly a decade there has been consensus among administrators and policymakers
that current systems and protocols throughout the United States for evaluating classroom
teachers are ineffective and need to be redesigned if there is to be instructional improvement in
American classrooms any time soon (Papay, 2012). Evaluation protocols have consisted of
subjective observation by administrators making high-stakes decisions about tenure or future
promotional opportunities based off of their preferred instructional techniques—or even bias—
about a teacher’s competence (Papay, 2012; Weiss & Weiss, 1998). Summative evaluation tools
that require procedures and focus on a regiment of subjective evaluation do not promote or
encourage a teacher’s self-development as an educator and can even stifle a teacher’s
professional growth (Weiss & Weiss, 1998).
The current system has administrators visiting classes with very little focus on improving
instruction in the classroom; rather, the administrators are simply meeting contractual obligations
(Papay, 2012). The literature identifies that, in many instances, teachers are not evaluated
regularly, and when an administrator does perform evaluations, teachers receive satisfactory
marks with almost no teachers being identified as unsatisfactory.
New evaluation tools need to be standards-based while taking into consideration an
authentic part of a teacher’s normal day, supporting the teacher’s own reflection upon his or her
progress as an educator and allowing time for teachers to collaborate on their best instructional
practices in the classroom (Weiss & Weiss, 1998). When teachers were asked about how they
believed an evaluation tool and protocol should be designed, they identified daily interactions
with their principal and the nature and the timing of the feedback as key aspects for any effective
evaluation protocol (Zimmerman & Deckert-Pelton, 2003).

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 28

Knowledge Required of a Principal to be an Effective Evaluator
Current systems and protocols for evaluating classroom teachers have been found to be
ineffective due to the generic nature of the tools themselves (Hill & Grossman, 2013). The
research indicates that these observation tools are used within a district for teachers of
kindergarten through grade 12, and are not specific to the content being taught in the classroom.
These systems are flawed because they suggest that a teacher in a kindergarten class needs to
have the same content knowledge as an instructor teaching high school algebra (Hill &
Grossman, 2013). These tools are designed to specifically evaluate a teacher’s professional
standards regarding classroom routines, student behavior, maximizing learning time,
differentiating instruction for a diverse student population, and building relationships with all
stakeholders specific to the school community (Hill & Grossman, 2013). The research shows that
evaluators need to be content specialists to effectively evaluate teachers—especially at the high
school level—and that the tool being used must also be specific to the content.
Teachers also believe that the principal must be a content specialist and have a shared
body of knowledge if he or she is to effectively evaluate all teachers on a high school campus.
Principals must self-reflect on their own knowledge and skill as critical components of the
evaluation process (Zimmerman & Deckert-Pelton, 2003). Teachers have a high regard for
administrators, especially their principal, if he or she has a rich understanding of the curriculum,
content, and the strategies incorporated into daily classroom routines and lessons (Mathers et al.,
2008). Mathers et al.’s (2008) research revealed that teachers need their principals to be content
specialists and to have this knowledge in order to provide authentic feedback that promotes their
growth as educators. Research has identified the flaws in the tool or instrument, indicating that
now the principal must be a content specialist to effectively evaluate teachers, and giving
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 29

examples on what tools must include. However, the research does not identify how a principal
and/or his or her administrative team can become content specialists in all courses taught at their
school. Mathers et al. (2008) have recommended the use of multiple evaluators, but even this
arrangement can be problematic if it violates the bargaining agreement with the teachers union.
Research-Based Evaluation
Aligning daily teaching practices with standards that are specific to the teaching
profession has been the goal for many states since the late 1990s, with the purpose of making
teachers accountable for student achievement and by making the teacher evaluation process
important (Daley & Kim, 2010; Mathers et al., 2008). Danielson and McGreal’s (2000) research
identified two purposes of a successful evaluation protocol that has both formative and
summative assessments. The formative assessment is designed around professional learning that
will improve instructional practices in the classroom; the summative aspect relates to the quality
of the instruction in the classroom, which is designed around teacher standards and a defined set
of criteria prior to the occurrence of the summative evaluation (Danielson & McGreal, 2000).
A standards-based evaluation protocol should require multiple sources of data with the
purpose of improving the quality and performance of the educator (Holland, 2005). Multiple
observations should be used throughout the educator’s evaluation year and should include data
from lesson plans, instructional materials, examples of student work, and evaluations by students
on the effectiveness of their teachers (Holland, 2005). Though Holland (2005) has identified key
points, the use of student evaluations or interviews could lead to grievances being filed because
of student bias against a teacher.
Since the 1990s, educators have debated how to successfully evaluate classroom teachers.
These debates have concluded that authentic evaluation protocols must be about a teacher’s daily
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 30

instructional practices (Daley & Kim, 2010; Weiss & Weiss, 2000). These debates have served
as a catalyst to get districts moving toward a standards-based model of evaluation originally
designed around the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and Charlotte
Danielson’s Framework for Effective Teaching (Papay, 2012; Toch & Rothman, 2008). The
frameworks are based off of five standards, with the following propositions that all educators
agree are essential to being an effective educator:
1. Teachers are committed to students and their learning;
2. Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to
students;
3. Teachers are responsible for managing and mentoring student learning;
4. Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience;
5. Teachers are members of learning communities.
These frameworks elucidate instructional standards for the teaching profession against which
administrators may evaluate a teacher’s effectiveness based on how well they were meeting them
throughout the school year (Papay, 2012). The literature indicates that these standards are far
more successful because they are evidence-based rather than drawing on administrator hunches,
personal judgments, or bias that a principal may have toward a specific teacher (Papay, 2012).
Papay’s (2012) research suggests that these standards-based evaluations provide richer data and
evidence of effective classroom instruction because, in using them, administrators visit a single
teacher’s classroom multiple times per year, then offer timely authentic feedback to the teacher.
In 1997, after 4 years of development in the State of California, the California
Commission on Teaching Credentialing (CCTC) adopted the California Standards for the
Teaching Profession (CSTP) (Whittaker et al., 2001). At the time of their adoption, the CSTP
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 31

were the first standards that would be valid statewide in 150 years of education in California
(Whittaker et al., 2001). The CSTP consists of six standards and 32 competencies designed
around a teacher’s diverse background, perspective, skill, knowledge, and practices (CTC, 2009).
The six standards per the CTC are as follows:
Standard 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning.
Standard 2: Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning.
Standard 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter for Student Learning.
Standard 4: Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for All Students.
Standard 5: Assessing Students for Learning.
Standard 6: Developing as a Professional Educator.
The CSTP were adopted in 1997, but gaps show up in the literature because many school
districts throughout California are not using the evaluation criteria identified in the standards due
to contractual issues with the local bargaining units. At this time, there is not conclusive data in
the literature identifying the CSTP as a successful protocol or instrument in the evaluation of
teachers in the State of California. There is, however, generalizable data stating that standards-
based evaluation protocols are overall more successful than protocols without essential standards
(Mathers et al., 2008).
Value-Added
Started in 2001 and still in use at the time of this study, the City of Cincinnati’s public
school system implements the Teacher Evaluation System (TES), which consists of 16 standards
divided into the following four domains: planning and preparing for student learning, creating an
environment for learning, teaching for learning, and professionalism (Mathers et al., 2008).
Teacher movement along a five-tiered salary scale is determined by how successfully the teacher
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 32

accomplishes these standards. During a teacher’s evaluation year in Cincinnati, the four domains
are evaluated six times during the year and divided into two segments: creating an environment
for learning and teaching for learning (Mathers et al., 2008). A teacher from another school who
has the same content knowledge as the teacher being evaluated performs four of the evaluations,
and the final two evaluations are performed by a site administrator (Mathers et al., 2008). The
final two domains—preparing for student learning and professionalism—are evaluated by the
site administrators using a portfolio process with samples of unit and lesson plans, student work,
and documentation of professional development as some of the required elements of the portfolio
(Mathers et al., 2008). If a teacher is ranked low on the five-step rubric, he or she does not
receive a pay increase and is required to go through the evaluation process again the following
school year.
Papay’s (2012) research indicates that Cincinnati’s evaluation process has been highly
successful in identifying teacher effectiveness, especially with midcareer teachers during and
after their evaluation cycles. However, research on the Cincinnati evaluation system remains
incomplete because the initial literature described the process as going through two
implementation stages—but the Cincinnati Public School bargaining unit did not approve the
second stage (Mathers et al., 2008).
In recent years, lawmakers have made it clear that teacher accountability must be part of
any teacher evaluation protocol or system, and student achievement data is the accountability
piece they are demanding (Papay, 2012). This value-added evaluation model directly assesses
student standardized test growth and monitors educational outputs not inputs; and, because the
value-added model uses external data, the evaluation is viewed as objective, not subjective like
many other evaluation systems (Papay, 2012).
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 33

The value-added model is a performance-based model of evaluation, with highly
effective teachers being compensated for their efforts because their students are mastering the
content being taught in their classrooms (Daley & Kim, 2010). Though the value-added system
can seem harsh, other systems that have been in place for decades have done more to protect
marginal teachers than to reward the highly effective educators in this country (Daley & Kim,
2010).
But the literature does identify a key flaw in the value-added model in its use of a single
year of student data because a single year doesn’t take into consideration student assignments to
a specific teacher’s classroom (Papay, 2012). Multiple years of student data take into account a
wide variety of student characteristics, with the key being the comparison data of a student’s
previous test scores to their current assessment data (Papay, 2012).
Frequency
The current system of evaluation has a tenured or senior teacher being observed once
during an evaluation cycle, but the literature indicates that multiple observations are the key to
having a successful evaluation protocol (Hill & Grossman, 2013; Mathers et al., 2008). Hill and
Grossman’s (2013) research argues that an experienced teacher should be observed between two
and four times during an evaluation cycle, and that teachers entering the profession should be
evaluated as many times as needed. Mathers et al. (2008) does not have a recommended number
of multiple observations but has stated that the number needs to be determined by the needs of
the teacher being evaluated. Mathers et al.’s (2008) research does not suggest a definitive
number of observations, but maintains that further research in the area of frequency is warranted,
because video research has revealed that conducting four or five observations is key to
improving the instructional practices of a classroom teacher.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 34

Additional frequency of observations must be followed by authentic feedback from the
person or persons evaluating the teacher—or the additional observations are pointless (Hill &
Grossman, 2013; Mathers et al., 2008).
Key Elements
Multiple data sources are necessary to implementing a standards-based evaluation
protocol that is not limited to administrative observations, walkthroughs, quick conferences, and
a single-teacher rating form (Peterson, 2004; Stronge, 2006). Research by Peterson (2004) and
Stronge (2006) has shown that the multiple data sources can and should come from principal
observations, student achievement data, student and parent feedback, and peer review. The
research additionally indicated that the surveys should be well-designed, tested for their validity,
and conducted in a professional manner. Research shows that educators can and will improve if
they are given authentic and meaningful feedback by their observer (Papay, 2012; Stronge, 2006).
Conversations between the observer and the teacher must be done courageously, giving
the teacher a clear understanding of his or her performance and successes and failures in the
classroom (Papay, 2012). Research has also shown that feedback must address which of the
teacher’s current practices need to be developed, thus allowing that teacher to become more
successful in the classroom.
Obstacles and Barriers
When we research the reasons for the failure of most evaluation protocols, the first
explanation the literature offers is the failure of the local bargaining units to agree to a process
that changes the status quo, because the evaluation process is so heavily embedded in union
contracts (Bernstein, 2004; Toch & Rothman, 2008). Most teacher contract language only
requires the union to protect a member’s due process rights and do not have the authority to
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 35

prevent consequences for individuals who have violated a provision within the contract
(Bernstein, 2004). The National Education Association (NEA) opposes any standards-based
evaluation that uses student achievement data from high-stakes standardized testing (Otterman,
2011).
The literature has shown that standards-based evaluation systems are costly when taking
into consideration the amount of time required to conduct the evaluations, the cost of
professional development, whether it is a value-added system, and the time it takes to gather the
data required to evaluate a teacher’s effectiveness and then pay the teacher a bonus (Papay, 2012;
Peterson, 2004; Toch & Rothman, 2008). Stronge (2006) has identified the politics behind the
implementation of a new standards-based evaluation system that can become emotionally
draining and challenging when an attempt is made to get all stakeholders to agree on the
implementation process.
The accuracy and alignment of a tool or instrument can actually be a barrier to successful
use if the rubric is not designed around teacher professional standards, allowing the bias of the
evaluator to influence assessment of the teacher’s overall instructional effectiveness in the
classroom (Hill & Grossman, 2013; Mathers et al., 2008; Papay, 2012; Peterson, 2004).
Hill and Grossman (2013) and Papay (2012) have identified the quality and content
expertise of the evaluator as a key barrier to effectively evaluating classroom teachers, asserting
that it is the school district’s responsibility to have a system in place to avoid problems related to
this issue. An evaluator’s lack of training can lead to misuse of the instrument, problems with
interpretation, and an absence of overall trust between the teacher and his or her evaluator
(Mathers et al., 2008).
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 36

Within the value-added model, the major obstacle is the use of a single year’s data to
evaluate a teacher. Test scores alone should not determine the effectiveness of a teacher (Hill &
Grossman, 2013; Kane, 2011). In addition to a drawing data from a single year, the value-added
system can only be used in certain grades and subjects that use standardized testing (Kane, 2011).
The literature continually addresses the use of both multiple years of data and multiple measures
to evaluate teacher effectiveness, but does not stipulate how the value-added system could be
used at the high school level—where content standards change from year to year. Finally, Kane
(2011) has argued that the value-added model must be consistently monitored by site
administrators to ensure that students are receiving a rigorous and relevant education—not one
reliant solely on test-taking strategies.
Professional Development
NCLB legislation required administrators to receive training on how to effectively
evaluate classroom teachers and this is still in effect today (Daley & Kim, 2010). This legislation
required local school districts to identify the types of training their administrators would need.
They were to move forward with this training; but due to time constraints, many administrators
never received the training.
Current leadership preparation programs must include information regarding the
knowledge an administrator needs in order to effectively evaluate teachers, and should be a
competency required for completion of the training program (Mathers et al., 2008). Rarely do
school districts require their administrators to be trained. The research indicates that professional
development focuses on curriculum and instruction at the expense of training in use of the
districts evaluation protocol. The administrators must have a good working knowledge of the
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 37

evaluation instrument if they are going to improve instruction in their classrooms (Mathers et al.,
2008).
The literature has shown that district offices must effectively train and support all
evaluators in how to have courageous conversations with ineffective teachers and attempt to
move forward with non-re-elect procedures (Papay, 2012). Papay’s (2012) research indicates that
administrators need expert training in providing the in-depth, genuine feedback teachers need to
improve their instructional practices in the classroom.
Peterson (2004) has shown that, in being the central figure on campus, the principal must
perform the key leadership function of evaluator, which means being visible in the classroom
and providing teachers input about each classroom visitation. Principals have registered a
preference for being in the classroom over other administrative functions like student discipline,
but due to a lack of training in time management classroom walk-throughs have become a
secondary function for principals.
Leadership education has long established that leadership skills are learned through
professional development opportunities and tenure in the position—not something leaders are
born with (Elmuti et al., 2005). Many principals have raised concerns about the quality and
effectiveness of the leadership preparation programs they attended for administrative
certification (Davis et al., 2005). These programs lack the depth and breadth of training a
principal needs to effectively lead his or her staff when real-world issues occur (Davis et al.,
2005).
Current principal preparation and professional development courses must design their
programs around the current research into school leadership, management, and instructional
capacity (Davis et al., 2005; Sparks, 2002). The research has indicated that principals must be
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 38

able to react appropriately to any issue or crisis occurring on campus, and can only do so if the
proper training was received. The literature identifies that principals need professional
development in current school leadership programs, but does not enumerate programs currently
available to principals.
Davis (2005) and his colleagues cited the use of principal mentors as a viable option to
training more effective leaders, but their research did not identify how the mentor could assist the
principal with the evaluation protocol designed for his/her specific district. A key factor in all
principal professional development is that training must be ongoing, not abruptly conclude once
he or she has been hired as a principal (Mitgang, 2008; Sparks, 2002).
Mitgang’s (2008) research indicates that a quality principal leadership program is not the
only factor in retaining quality principals: the organization one works for is also a major
determinant. If people are not supported and feel undermined by their leadership, they will not
achieve success. The research states that less than one-third of the principals surveyed felt they
were supported by district administration.
Theory
The skills, knowledge, and training required of a principal to be an effective evaluator
will continue to be a topic of discussion as long as the same systems stay in place—ones already
proven inadequate in improving instruction in the classroom. We will now turn to social
cognitive theory to document the issues preventing principals from gaining the skills and
knowledge to effectively evaluate their classroom teachers.
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory affords a clear understanding of the cognitive skills needed of a
principal to effectively evaluate his or her classroom teachers. One assumption of social
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 39

cognitive theory is that, through forethought and self-reflection, people can substantially
influence their own outcomes and the environments in which they live and work (Denler,
Wolters & Benzon, 2006). That individuals learn by observing mentors whose behavior they
choose to emulate is at the heart of social cognitive theory. Though observational learning
requires mentors who have had positive experiences in the field of study, in many cases these
mentors are not always available when needed (Denler et al., 2006). The research has identified
the use of audio or video as alternatives to getting information in person or being observed by a
mentor or model.
Self-efficacy and goal setting are elements that drive social cognitive theory, because if
an individual does not believe he or she can be successful at a particular task, a positive outcome
only occurs in rare instances (Denler et al., 2006). With the support of mentors and/or peers, self-
efficacy can be attained even if the individual has had past failures but the barriers to success can
no longer exist (Denler et al., 2006). Goal setting is a cognitive approach that centers on
anticipated and desired outcomes designed with the end game in mind (Denler et al., 2006).
Summary
This literature review substantiates the concerns discussed in the introduction—in
particular, that many current overall evaluation protocols are ineffective in appraising classroom
teachers. The literature review was designed to answer the research questions, which address the
elements of an effective evaluation protocol, including: the principal’s required content
knowledge; the CSTP as an effective evaluation tool; effective strategies a principal can use to
evaluate classroom teachers; and the development of an effective professional development
program to assist principals with the evaluation of teachers.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 40

Research shows that principals should have the specific content knowledge required of all
courses and, if necessary, multiple evaluators should be used to ensure that teachers are having a
quality experience and receiving the feedback they need to improve their overall teaching
practices (Hill & Grossman, 2013; Mathers et al., 2008; Zimmerman & Deckert-Pelton, 2003).
The literature, however, does not identify how this important process can be realized given the
contractual guidelines of local bargaining units.
The effectiveness of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) has not
been fully defined. However, the literature supports a standards-based evaluation system and
protocol that uses multiple data sources and multiple classroom observations, followed soon after
by judicious, genuine feedback that assists the teacher to improve as an educator (Daley & Kim,
2010; Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Holland, 2005; Mathers et al., 2008; Papay, 2012; Weiss &
Weiss, 2000). The value-added evaluation system—which evaluates a teacher on student
achievement data and can determine advances on the salary schedule and serve as a deciding
factor in their overall employment status as an educator—is becoming more popular (Daley &
Kim, 2010; Mathers et al., 2008; Papay, 2012).
The literature identifies strategies that were not specifically applicable to teacher
evaluation, but enumerate the strategies and skills that principals should acquire—namely, a
transformational leadership style that includes servant leadership (Elmuti et al., 2005; Marzano et
al., 2005; Northouse, 2007; Pepper, 2010). These researchers have shown that principal
leadership should include building relationships with staff that will allow courageous
conversations to take place because administrators are seen by teachers as nonthreatening and
take a humanistic approach toward them.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 41

The professional development literature states that all principals need ongoing
professional development including that which addresses such proficiencies as teacher
evaluation; but the literature does not identify the depth or breadth of the training required to
assist principals in becoming effective evaluators of their classroom teachers (Daley & Kim,
2010; Davis et al., 2005; Mathers et al., 2008; NCLB, 2001; Papay, 2012; Sparks, 2002).
In conclusion, the gaps in the literature justify the present study’s central focus on the
needs related to a principal’s content knowledge, strategies, standards-based evaluation system,
and professional development in order to become an effective evaluator of classroom teachers.
The literature review and the gaps identified therein support the need for further study of this
topic, specifically validating the significance of the survey instruments and methods
implemented throughout this study.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 42

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The literature review revealed that the changing role of the principal is making it far more
difficult for these leaders to meet the internal and external demands placed on them by all
educational stakeholders (Catano & Stronge, 2006). Initially, principals found themselves
attending to school operations and to the effective management of the facilities; obligations that
had very little to do with being an instructional leader (Catano & Stronge, 2006).
When they became responsible for evaluating their staff—including classroom
teachers—principals found the process to be inherently difficult because the field of education is
complex, especially at the high school level, where teachers are credentialed in specific content
areas not necessarily familiar to the principal (Zerger, 1988). Through the use of a standards-
based evaluation system, principals can become more effective evaluators and identify the
instructional practices their teachers need to improve on in order to meet the standards of a
“highly qualified” teacher (Papay, 2012). But these practices cannot be improved upon without
presenting the teacher timely and genuine feedback that outlines a plan for improvement. Being
an effective instructional leader means that high school principals must have sometimes-difficult
conversations with their teaching staff. However, this process cannot take place effectively
unless the principal has received the professional development that has moved him or her from
site manager to instructional leader. To make an informed decision on the teacher being a highly
qualified educator, the principal must gain an understanding of the content being instructed in a
specific course and also be knowledgeable of the research best practices (Hill & Grossman,
2013).
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 43

The purpose of this study was to explore what is required of a principal to be an effective
evaluator of his or her certificated classroom teachers, and what skills, knowledge and training is
required to get him or her to the level of competency required to identify and document highly
qualified and marginal classroom teachers. In addition, the study explored how highly successful
principals were currently evaluating their classroom teachers and whether the standards for the
teaching profession assisted the principal with this process.
Research Questions
The following questions guided this research study:
1. What requisite knowledge of the content standards must a principal have to
effectively evaluate classroom teachers?
2. Would using the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) be an
effective evaluation tool and protocol for evaluating classroom teachers?
3. What strategies can be used by a principal to evaluate classroom teachers?
4. What are the key elements—if any—of an effective professional development
program that can assist a principal to effectively evaluate classroom teachers?
The answers to these four research questions address principal evaluation and, it is hoped, will
serve to create a protocol for districts to use as an evaluation instrument that can effectively
identify teacher quality, and the effectiveness of his or her instruction in the classroom. Data
were collected through surveys and interviews and served the researcher’s effort to learn more
about a standards-based approach to teacher evaluation.
Research Design
Qualitative research methods give a researcher the flexibility to use many alternative
sources of data, including interviews and observations (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Maxwell
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 44

(2013) has described a qualitative study as having a flexible structure that is interactive,
requiring the researcher to get completely involved in the research and not to rely solely on
someone else’s findings. Quantitative research design gives greater depth to statistical data
analysis by measuring information numerically through survey and experiments (Creswell, 2009).
Combining qualitative and quantitative research design into a more comprehensive mixed-
methods approach integrates the data to get a better understanding of the research problem and
its purpose (Creswell, 2009).
Research questions one through four were used in creating the comprehensive interview
protocol used during the interviews of the high school principals. The interview protocol
consisted of open-ended questions, which allowed for richer responses from the principals.
However, only questions 1, 2, and 4 were used to create the quantitative survey to which the high
school principals responded, due to the fact that question 3 was more conducive to an open-
ended response from a person being interviewed.
Methodology
Data for this research was collected in two separate phases, with the surveys occurring
during phase one, and the interviews performed during phase two. First, the quantitative data was
collected from the high school principals using an electronic data collection process. This data
focused on the effectiveness and skills a principal needs to be an effective evaluator. During the
second phase, the qualitative data collected was about the beliefs, opinions, and assertions the
principals had developed about the skills, knowledge, and training they needed to be effective
evaluators of classroom teachers.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 45

Quantitative Methodology
To address research questions 1, 2, and 4, a quantitative methodology was used to collect
and analyze the data. The number of high school principals in this country is vast, thus the
population needed to be narrowed. To narrow down this large pool, a criterion-based purposeful
sampling was used for gathering the data (Merriam, 2009). The survey was divided into three
sections: standards-based evaluation, content knowledge and skills, and principal professional
development.
Qualitative Methodology
To address all four research questions, a qualitative methodology was used to collect and
analyze the data. Merriam (2009) has defined qualitative research as using rich descriptive words
about a phenomenon and being emergent and flexible in relation to the changing conditions of
such phenomenon, thus describing the context of the participants’ involvement in a specific
activity. Merriam (2009) has indicated that when writing a successful interview protocol, one
should avoid questions that have multiple responses, leading questions, and closed-ended
questions that tend to lead to yes-or-no responses. The interview protocol for this study used
interpretive and ideal position questions to draw personal and professional responses from the
high school principals (Merriam, 2009).
Sample and Population
The population used for this study was criterion-based and purposeful so as to select high
school principals who had a deep understanding of a standards-based evaluation system—more
specifically, the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). The target population
was high school principals located in Southern California who met the following criteria:
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 46

1. Principals who had used the CSTP as an evaluation tool to evaluate classroom
teachers.
2. Principals who had used the CSTP for at least one year, so they had at least one year
of data in the use of the CSTP
Southern California has nearly 900 high schools. Through a school website search and
phone calls to school districts throughout Southern California, the researcher narrowed the
sampling size to 92 high schools that met the criteria and qualified to complete the electronic
survey.
Instrumentation
Qualitative Instrument
The interview protocol was designed as a semi-structured interview that would lend
flexibility to the interview, thus gaining richer insight into the topic of teacher evaluation and
allowing for probing questions to gain additional perspective on the topic (Merriam, 2009). The
researcher composed the interview questions with the specific intent of addressing the four
themes contained within each question: effectiveness of the CSTP, required content knowledge,
evaluation strategies, and the professional development needed to be an effective evaluator of
classroom teachers (see Appendix A). The interview questions were reviewed and approved by
the researcher’s dissertation committee prior to the protocol being utilized. The principals
received a copy of the interview questions prior to the interview, allowing them to review the
questions and give their final consent to be interviewed.
Quantitative Instrument
Creswell’s (2009) survey design methods and checklist were used to develop the survey
instrument for this research. A properly designed survey will give the researcher quantitative
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 47

numerical data of the respondents’ attitudes and opinions of the population sampled, thus
allowing the researcher to generalize or make claims about the population (Creswell, 2009). The
survey was designed as a six-point Likert scale with the following descriptors: Strongly Agree,
Agree, Somewhat Agree, Somewhat Disagree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. In addition, the
survey designated three categories: CSTP effectiveness, academic content knowledge, and
professional development needs (see Appendix B).
Data Collection
Data from the survey was collected through an electronic statistical survey tool, and the
site used was Surveymonkey.com. An initial letter was sent to the 22 district superintendents to
get their consent to allow the 92 qualifying principals within their district to complete the survey.
The letter provided specific background information about the research to be conducted
regarding the teacher evaluation processes within their respective districts; further background
on the researcher; and an email address to which to send their responses (see Appendix C).
Once the superintendents gave their consent to proceed, letters were sent to the qualifying
principals detailing the specifics of the survey, explaining that the survey should take
approximately 10–15 minutes to complete. The letter included the survey-monkey link (see
Appendix D).
The researcher prepared a written protocol that was then used during the interviews. This
protocol included a greeting, the purpose of the interview, confidentiality statement, request from
the participant to allow for the interview to be recorded, and an explanation that the participant
could end the interview at anytime if he or she chose to do so (Merriam, 2009). After reviewing
the statistical data from the surveys, five principals were contacted, consented, and then were
interviewed for the study.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 48

The researcher explained to each participant-interviewee that notes would also be taken
during the interview to document the interview in case of a technology failure with the digital
recorder. Prior to the interview, the purpose of the interview was again discussed and each
respondent was asked if he or she had any further questions. The interviews averaged
approximately 30 minutes to complete, and when the interviews were complete participants were
thanked for their time.
Data Analysis
The quantitative and qualitative data collected during the electronic survey and interview
protocols were the primary components used to address and analyze the four research questions,
using the methods shown in Table 1, below.
Table 1

Qualitative and Quantitative Data Analysis Plan
Research Question Instruments Analysis Data
1. What requisite knowledge of the
content standards must a principal have to
effectively evaluate classroom teachers?
Interview
Survey Section 2
Open-ended
Likert Scale
2. Would using the California Standards
for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) be an
effective evaluation tool and protocol for
evaluating classroom teachers?
Interview
Survey Section 1
Open-ended
Likert Scale
3. What strategies can be used by a
principal to evaluate classroom teachers?
Interview Open-ended
4. What are the key elements--if any--
of an effective professional development
program that can assist a principal to
effectively evaluate classroom teachers?
Interview
Survey Section 3
Open-ended
Likert Scale

Data was analyzed using Creswell’s (2009) six-step process, which allows the researcher
to have a deep and rich understanding of the data collected. Once the interviews were transcribed,
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 49

computer-coding software was used to code the responses and place them into categories that
supported the four research questions. This qualitative data, combined with the quantitative
numerical data, allowed greater insight and meaning into what required elements must be written
into an evaluation system if it is to improve instruction in the classroom.
Validity and Reliability
This study used multiple data sources in order to properly triangulate the data, converging
information from these multiple sources and participant perspectives and thus increasing the
credibility and the accuracy of the data collected (Creswell, 2009). Multiple in-depth semi-
structured interview questions were asked of the respondents and were compared to the data
collected from the other respondents to verify reliability and validity and to see if common topics
and themes emerged.
Ethical Considerations
The researcher took into consideration the ethical obligations of the researcher
throughout the study. This study was approved by the University of Southern California’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB) and complied with all ethical guidelines of conducting research
using human subjects. All of the interviews and statistical data, including field notes, digital
recordings, and all other data has been secured. Digital recordings, transcriptions, and field notes
have been kept in locked cabinets to which only the researcher has access. All electronic
transcripts and survey statistical data are kept in password-protected files, to which only the
researcher is has access.
All participants, school district, and school locations in the study are referred to by
pseudonyms to protect the identity and locations of the participants in the study. All respondents
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 50

first gave their consent to be interviewed and participate in the survey, and the interviews were
conducted one on one at the site of the participating principal.
Summary
Chapter Three described the methodology used to conduct this study, including the
purpose of the study, research design, qualitative and quantitative methods, sample population,
instrumentation, data collection procedures, data analysis, validity and reliability, and ethical
considerations. Chapter Four contains detailed analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data
collected and the significant findings produced from that data.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 51

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Background

This chapter presents the findings of the data collected and analyzed under the current
study, which investigated the leadership skills, knowledge, and training required of high school
principals to effectively evaluate classroom teachers. The researcher performed a mixed-methods
research study using quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data used for this study
were surveys; an electronic system was used to collect this data. In total, 92 high school
principals met the purposeful sampling criteria of using the California Standards for the
Teaching profession to evaluate classroom teachers and collecting data from these observations
for 1 full school year. Of the 92 survey links sent to these qualified high school principals, 36
principals completed the survey. However, five of the principals did not meet the criteria of
being a principal for at least 1 full school year, and another principal was unable to complete the
survey.
From the survey data, five high school principals were chosen from the 30 survey
respondents based on the schools socially economically disadvantaged (SED) demographic as
the deciding variable. The schools ranged from 14% of the student population participating in the
free and reduced lunch program to 85% of the student population participating in the free and
reduced lunch program. All five of the high school principals had been in their current positions
for a minimum of 3 school years. These interview participants are referred to in this study as
Principals A, B, C, D, and E, and no other identifying information will be discussed or reported
about their person, schools, or districts anywhere within this study.
This research was conducted by a single researcher at the University of Southern
California interested in studying the leadership skills, knowledge, and training that high school
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 52

principals need to possess to effectively evaluate their classroom teachers. The data used for this
study was collected and analyzed during the time frame of February to May 2014.
Quantitative Demographic Data
The quantitative data was obtained through the use of an electronic survey system with
39 of the 40 questions using a 6-point Likert scale. The Likert scale ranged from strongly agree,
agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree. Each response was
assigned a numerical value with strongly agree assigned the highest numerical value of 6, and
strongly disagree being assigned the lowest numerical value of 1.
Table 2 shows the gender of the high school principals who participated in the survey.
Table 2

Summary Demographic Data on Survey Participants Gender (n =30)
Measure Male Female Total
No. of Principals 25

5

30

% of Principals 83.3

16.7

100

The demographic data in Table 2 on the gender of the research participants indicate that
25, or 83.3%, of the principals surveyed were male, with the remaining 16.7% being female.
Table 3 shows the number of years the respondents had been a high school principal.
Table 3

Tenure as a High School Principal
Measure 2–5 Years 6–10 Years 11–15 Years 15+ Years Total
No. of
Principals
18 8 2 2 30

% of
Principals
60 26.67 6.67 6.67 100
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 53

The demographic data in Table 3 indicate the research participant’s tenure as high school
principals was between 2–5 years. The majority, or 86.67%, of the respondents had been high
school principals between 2–10 years. Table 4 shows the student population of each of the
respondent’s school sites.
Table 4

Respondents ’ School Site Student Population
Measure 500 or less
501–
1000
1,001–
2000
2001–
2500
2500
+ Total
No. of
Principals
2 0 6 14 8 30

% of
Principals
6.67 0.00 20.00 46.67 26.67 100

The demographic data in Table 4 indicate that 22 of the 30 research respondents, or 73.34%, of
the principals worked at a high school where the student population was greater than 2000.
Table 5 shows the highest level of education attained by the respondents.
Table 5

Surveyed Principals Highest Level of Education Attained
Measure MA/MS
EdD/PhD
(Currently in a program) EdD/PhD Total
No. of
Principals
16 3 11 30
% of
Principals
53.33 10.00 36.67 100

The demographic data in Table 5 indicate that only 3 of the 30 research participants had obtained
a doctoral degree with a majority or 53.3% of the principals currently holding a master’s degree.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 54

Qualitative Demographic Data
Table 6 shows the demographic data of each of the principals who agreed to be
interviewed for this research study.
Table 6

Demographics of the Individual Principals Interviewed
(n =5)
Principal

Type of School Gender
Years as a
High School
Principal
Education
Level
School
Enrollment
Free and
Reduced
Lunch
%
A Comprehensive Male 5 EdD 2130 14
B Comprehensive Female 3 EdD 2150 36
C Comprehensive Male 3 MA, Ed 3100 45
D Comprehensive Male 5 MA, Ed 2100 85
E Comprehensive Male 4 MA, Ed 2460 52

An analysis of the data in Table 6 indicates that four out of five principals who agreed to
be interviewed were male and all five of the principals were currently leading comprehensive
high schools. The respondents had been principals for at least 3 years, and two of the five
principals had obtained a doctoral degree. The mean or average student population for the
principals interviewed was 2,388 students and the free and reduced lunch student populations
ranged 14%– 85%.
Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to analyze, disaggregate, and present the data collected in
this quantitative and qualitative mixed-methods research study. In addition, it is the purpose of
this chapter to report the findings of the four research questions that drive this study and to
identify the commonalities and differences that the principals identified that made them effective
evaluators of their classroom teachers. Surveys were used to collect the quantitative data.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 55

According to Creswell (2009), a properly designed survey will give the researcher the numerical
data of the respondent’s current attitudes and opinions, allowing the researcher to generalize or
make claims about the population surveyed. In addition to the demographic data and the Likert-
scale questions included in the survey, question 40 was a two-part open-ended response question
that yielded qualitative data about the professional development the respondents had received in
teacher evaluation.
An interview protocol was established with semi-structured interview questions that
allowed for the flexibility of the interviewer to ask additional probing questions to gain
additional perspective, perceptions, and insight from the persons being interviewed (Merriam,
2009). The creation of a protocol allows for greater consistency from the respondents to ensure
that they are being asked the same initial questions, thus establishing the validity and reliability
of the interview protocol (Merriam, 2009). The interview questions contained in the protocol
were sequential, and the questions were grouped to correspond to the four research questions in
this research study. The protocol used during the interviews is included as Appendix A.
Coding of Data
Once the qualitative interview data were collected, an open-coding system was utilized to
analyze this data. The interviews were documented with a digital recorder and handwritten field
notes. The recordings and field notes were reviewed, analyzed, and coded for later
documentation of the findings. The interviews were transcribed verbatim so as not to lose any
valuable information gathered from the conversations.
The researcher followed Creswell’s (2009) detailed eight-step coding process, which is
an analysis of the data collected that breaks down the material into chunks or segments, allowing
the researcher to better organize his or her data. To effectively code the data, the researcher used
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 56

techniques described by Creswell (2009), whereby the researcher identifies descriptive wording
within the interview and survey data and turns them into subcategories. The researcher used a
printed copy of the interviews and surveys to highlight these key phrases, assigning a color to
each of the three identified categories.
Once the individual survey data was collected from the computer-based collection system,
the data were analyzed and aggregated into themes that corresponded with the four research
questions. The summary data from the surveys were also analyzed and grouped into themes
established from the individual surveys, which allowed for comparison of how each respondent
had answered an individual question. Next, the researcher highlighted key phases and located the
same phases on the electronic copy of my interview protocols and, using the highlight feature in
Microsoft Word, highlighted the data with the same color used on the hard copy with a highlight
marker. The researcher designed a data coding form to help organize the data and cut and pasted
from the electronic version of the interview protocol the highlighted information into the
assigned category. This was much easier than it sounds because a dual monitor system was
utilized, which allowed the researcher to cut and paste from one screen to the other.
After physically coding the data, the researcher used QSR NVivo 10, a qualitative
software system to finalize the coding of qualitative data found in the surveys and interviews.
The use of the computer software system validated the reliability and validity of the data
collected while conducting this research study. The data collected from the surveys and the
interview protocol were based on the four guiding research questions from the study’s
conceptual framework and were the guiding factors in the analysis phase of the research study.
The researcher used summarized analysis, verbatim quotations, and tables to document the
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 57

findings of the data collected during the research study. This chapter contains a narrative account
of these findings.
Guiding Questions
The following four research questions guided this research study:
1. What requisite knowledge of the content standards must a principal have to
effectively evaluate classroom teachers?
2. Would using the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) be an
effective evaluation tool and protocol for evaluating classroom teachers?
3. What strategies can be used by a principal to evaluate classroom teachers?
4. What are the key elements—if any—of an effective professional development
program that can assist a principal to effectively evaluate classroom teachers
Research Question One
What requisite knowledge of the content standards must a principal have to effectively
evaluate classroom teachers?
Quantitative Data
Principals, especially high school principals, must be content specialists if they are going
to effectively evaluate their classroom teachers, and the tool itself should be designed around the
content being observed (Hill & Grossman, 2013). Teachers being observed and evaluated
believed that it is imperative that their principals have knowledge of the content they are
teaching, if they are going to effectively evaluate the lesson being delivered (Zimmerman &
Deckert-Pelton, 2003).
The principals were asked in the survey if they needed to be content specialists to
effectively evaluate their classroom teachers, and 13 of the 30 principals agreed with this
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 58

statement, but nearly 54% of the principals responded that this was not a requisite for them to
effectively evaluate their classroom teachers. When the principals were asked in the survey if
they needed to only know instructional best practices, nearly 67% of the principals agreed with
this statement. Table 7 shows the principals’ responses to these questions.
Table 7

Principals ’ Responses to Content Knowledge and Instructional Best Practices (n =30)
Element
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Somewhat
Disagree
(3)
Somewhat
Agree
(4)
Agree
(5)
Strongly
Agree
(6)
Response
Mean
Knowledgeable
of the content
being
instructed?
4 9 4 8 4 1 3.07

Know only
instructional
best practices?
1 6 3 5 10 5 4.07

The response mean identified a full 1-point difference between the two questions with the
mode or most repeated response as “disagree” for a principal needing to have content knowledge
to effectively evaluate classroom teachers. The mode for instructional best practices with 10 of
the 30 principals was “agreed.” There was one outlier for each question, with one principal
answering “strongly agree” that principals need to have knowledge of the content being
instructed, which was 2.93 above the overall response mean. A different respondent answered
“strongly disagree” that a principal only know instructional best practices, which is 3.07 below
the overall response mean.
Teachers hold their principals in a higher regard if they have knowledge and
understanding of the curriculum, content, and the strategies used to deliver the content on a daily
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 59

basis (Mathers et al., 2008). Based on this information, the principals were asked if they would
consider using a content specialist as a co-evaluator if they did not know the content being
delivered in the classroom. The survey data revealed that 22 of the 30 principals, or 73%, would
agree at some level to use a co-evaluator to evaluate the quality of the teacher’s lesson. The
researcher took the co-evaluator question even deeper and asked the principals if they would
consider using a secondary evaluator from another school site or the district office. Of the 30
principals surveyed, 17 agreed that they would consider using a secondary evaluator, which is
just over 56%. Table 8 shows the principals’ responses to a co-evaluator and the use of a
secondary evaluator from another school site of the district office.

Table 8

Principals ’ Responses to the Use of a Co-Evaluator and/or a Secondary Evaluator (n = 30)
Element
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Somewhat
Disagree
(3)
Somewhat
Agree
(4)
Agree
(5)
Strongly
Agree
(6)
Response
Mean
Use of a co-
evaluator who
has specific
content
knowledge?
1 4 3 11 10 1 3.93

Use of a
secondary
evaluator
from a
different
school site or
the district
office?
3 5 5 7 10 0 3.53

The response mean identified that there was only a .4 numerical difference in the
responses to both questions. The response means for both questions was below four, but they
were numerically closer to “somewhat agree” than “somewhat disagree.” When the principals
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 60

were asked about using a co-evaluator 22 of the 30 or 73% of the principals agreed at some level
that that they would consider this practice. The use of a secondary evaluator identified that 17 of
the 22 or 57% of the principals agreed at some level that they would consider the use of an
outside secondary evaluator. The mode for the use of a co-evaluator with 11 of the 30 principals
answering that they “somewhat agree” with the statement, and the mode for the use of an outside
secondary evaluator with 10 of the 30 principals answering, “Agree.”
Qualitative Data
The five principals interviewed were asked if being a content specialist was a
requirement for being an effective evaluator of their classroom teachers and if they would
consider using a co-evaluator in situations where they did not know the specific content being
instructed. The principals interviewed did not believe this was a requirement for effectively
evaluating their classroom teachers. Principals C and D stated that they believed it would
certainly assist a principal in the evaluation process, but it was definitely not a requirement.
Principal B was more adamant and stated:
Absolutely not. I pride myself in being an expert in instruction, and I feel it’s one of my
strengths. I can pinpoint a good teacher a mile away, and I pinpoint a bad teacher a mile
away regardless of what they’re teaching.
Principal B also stated that it was important for a principal to have a grasp on content standards
and the curriculum being instructed in all of her classrooms, but again that it is not a necessity
for effectively evaluating your classroom teachers. Being aware of the content standards is the
consensus for all five of the principals surveyed, with Principal E stating:
Be aware of them, yes. I think it's important to be at least aware, have a general nature of
what's the just of all of those standards . . . What are they trying to get kids to be able to
do, whether that's in English, we're expecting kids to be able to communicate effectively.
Engage in dialog and discussion. Being able to write effectively, those are kinds of things
I'm going to go in and look for in terms of practice.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 61

The principals interviewed believed that having the knowledge of good instructional strategies
and practices were vital to effectively evaluating classroom teachers, not having extensive
knowledge of the content being instructed in the classroom.
The principals interviewed were asked their thoughts on using a co-evaluator during the
evaluation process who has specific content knowledge about the content being instructed.
Principals B and E were completely against the use of any other individual in the classroom
during a teacher evaluation. Principal E stated: “Personally, I would not consider using a co-
evaluator. That's just one other person you would have to work out the logistics for to be part of
the conversation.” Principals C and D felt the use of a co-evaluator during the evaluation process
would be quite beneficial to the evaluation process. The principals believed that having another
individual in the classroom during the evaluation who had specific content knowledge would
bring credibility to the process. If the teacher feels he or she is being evaluated on the totality of
the lesson, not just the delivery, and the additional individual would make the experience much
more meaningful for the teacher. However, both of the principals clarified that when they discuss
a co-evaluator model they were making reference to their current assistant principals assisting
them with the evaluation, not someone who isn’t familiar with their teaching staff. Principal C
stated:
Again, yes. I have no problem using a co-evaluator. We divide up and I work with my
APs, we think about who's best in subjects and where we're going. Somebody else may
have a specialty in Special Ed, I get to let them take that over.

Lastly, principal A would possibly consider using a co-evaluator, but it was something that he
really hadn’t thought much of as a high school principal. He was quick to state that before he
would attempt using any type of co-evaluation process he would want professional development
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 62

in the process and calibrate with all of the other administrators using the process to ensure that
all of teachers were being evaluated equally.
The theme that continually arose during the interviews about the use of a co-evaluation
model was the barriers that could impede the process and how it could be a detriment to the
current evaluation protocol. One of the key barriers was the local teachers union taking offense at
having other individuals in the classroom during a teacher’s formal evaluation. This process
allows another person to have access to a teacher’s confidential record, and can disrupt the one-
on-one relationships that a principal has built with his or her classroom teachers. All of the
principals interviewed believed the process must first be vetted by the teachers union and the
process then written into the teacher’s contract before it can be successfully implemented.

Table 9

Principal s’ Initial Response to Needing to be a Content Specialist and the use of a Co-Evaluator
Principal

Gender
Years as
a high
school
principal
Does the principal need Content-
specific knowledge?
Use of a
Co-evaluator?
A Male 5 Principal must be aware of them
I would definitely
consider it but I would
want to probably receive
coaching
B Female 3 Absolutely Not
I don’t think I would
have a co-evaluator.
C Male 3 It certainly helps.
Yes. I have no problem
using a co-evaluator.
D Male 5 It is very helpful
Yes, I would have no
problem with that.
E Male 4 Principal must be aware of them
Personally, I would not
consider using a co-
evaluator.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 63

Table 9 shows the initial responses made by the principals during their individual
interviews about needing to have specific content knowledge and the use of a co-evaluator
during formal teacher evaluations. Several data points based from the principals demographic
information was used in Table 9 to see if there could be a direct correlation between the
principal’s gender and their years as a high school principal. After careful analysis of this data,
no direct correlation could be found, and individual preference and prior experience seems to
have driven their responses to these two interview questions.
Research Question Two
Would using the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) be an effective
evaluation tool and protocol for evaluating classroom teachers?
In addressing this question, survey questions were designed around the evaluation
protocol design, procedures, and the effectiveness of the actual protocol used by the principal’s
school district. Following the survey, in-depth interviews of five principals were performed to
get further information and data from an individual perspective on their teacher evaluation
practices.
Since the 1990s, debate has taken place in education on how to properly evaluate
classroom teachers, with the debates concluding that effective evaluation protocols must be
designed around a teacher’s daily instructional practices (Daley & Kim, 2010; Weiss & S. Weiss,
2000). Based on this assertion, the principals were asked if they felt their evaluation protocol was
designed around a teacher’s daily instructional practices. Of the 30 principals surveyed, 20, or
67%, agreed at some level that their protocol was designed with this strategy in mind. However,
10, or 33%, of the principals did not believe their district’s evaluation protocol was designed
around a teacher’s daily instructional practice. In addition to the evaluation tool being designed
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 64

around teacher’s daily instructional practices, the principals believed that they were spending
sufficient time in the classroom during an observation to determine this outcome.
The principals were asked about the procedures their districts used prior to and after
completing an observation with a classroom teacher. The principals believed that the pre- and
post-conferences were a vital part of their evaluation protocol, with 93% of the principals
agreeing at some level (see Table 10). Another key to an effective evaluation protocol was giving
the teachers timely feedback on what they had observed in the classroom—feedback that was
designed around assisting the teacher in improving as an educator; 100% of the principals
surveyed agreed with this assertion (see Table 10). However, when the principals were asked if
they or their school district required teacher reflection as part of the post-observation conference,
the responses were split, with 50% agreeing and 50% disagreeing that they used this practice as
part of their post-observation conference (see Table 10).
Table 10

Principal's responses to pre/post conferences, timely feedback, and teacher reflection (n=30)
Element
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Somewhat
Disagree
(3)
Somewhat
Agree
(4)
Agree
(5)
Strongly
Agree
(6)
Response
Mean
Pre and Post
Observation
Conferences?
0 0 2 5 9 14 5.17

Timely feedback
is given in the
Post
Conference?
0 0 0 6 11 13 5.23

The evaluation
protocol uses
teacher
reflection?
2 11 2 2 9 4 3.57
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 65

Table 10 shows that the response mean for the questions that reference the pre- and post-
observation conferences and teachers receiving timely feedback has a numerical difference of
only .06, and the mode for both questions is “strongly agree.” Conversely, when the principals
were asked if they or their districts used teacher reflection as a common practice in a post-
observation setting, the response mean’s numerical value of 3.57 was less than 1.6 points below
the other two response means, and the mode was “disagree.”
A standards-based evaluation protocol should require multiple sources of data with the
purpose of improving the quality and performance of the educator (Holland, 2005). Multiple
observations should be used throughout the educator’s evaluation year and should include data
from lesson plans, instructional materials, examples of student work, and evaluations by students
on the effectiveness of their teachers (Holland, 2005).
As part of the survey, the principals were asked if a standards-based evaluation protocol
designed around the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) would be an
effective tool to evaluate their classroom teachers. The principals surveyed agreed that the CSTP
would be a valuable tool for teacher evaluation, with 90% of the principals answering either
“somewhat agree,” “agree,” or “strongly agree” (See Table 11). When the principals were asked
if their evaluation protocol used multiple measures to evaluate teacher performance, a majority
of the principals agreed, with 67% responding either “somewhat agree,” “agree,” or “strongly
agree” (see Table 11). In addition to using multiple measures, the principals were asked if they
used multiple observations for one formal evaluation cycle, and 63% of the principals agreed,
responding either “somewhat agree,” “agree,” or “strongly agree” (see Table 11). However, this
leaves nearly 4 out of 10 principals using a single observation for one evaluation cycle.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 66

Table 11

Principals ’ Responses to the Use of the CSTP, Multiple Measures, and Multiple Observations (n
= 30)
Element
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Somewhat
Disagree
(3)
Somewhat
Agree
(4)
Agree
(5)
Strongly
Agree
(6)
Response
Mean
Use of the CSTP 0 2 1 6 15 6 4.7

Multiple
Measures
2 7 1 6 10 4 3.9

Multiple
Observations
3 4 4 2 9 8 4.13

The analysis of the data in Table 11 identifies that a large majority of the principals
surveyed believed that the CSTP is a valuable tool for evaluating classroom teachers. In addition
to the 27 principals who agreed at some level that the CSTP are valuable, 21 of the 27 principals
surveyed either “agree” or “strongly agree” with this assertion. The mode for all three responses
is “agree,” with the use of multiple measures having the lowest numerical response mean of 3.9,
due to the fact that 7 of the responding principals answered “disagree” to this question.
Additional analysis of the data identified that the principals believed that the CSTP and its six
standards still allowed the flexibility needed to effectively evaluate all of the teachers on their
school sites, not just the core teachers in English, mathematics, science, and the social sciences.
Of the 30 principals surveyed, 25, or 83%, answered either “somewhat agree,” “agree,” or
“strongly agree” (see Table 12). In comparison, the principals were asked if they would rather
script what they observe during an evaluation and subjectively decide if the teacher is effective
in the classroom. The principals overwhelmingly rejected this assertion, with 86% of the
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 67

principals answering either “somewhat disagree,” “disagree,” or “strongly disagree” (see Table
12).
Table 12

Comparison of a Standards-Based Protocol and a Scripted Nonstandards-Based Protocol (N =
30)
Element
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Somewhat
Disagree
(3)
Somewhat
Agree
(4)
Agree
(5)
Strongly
Agree
(6)
Response
Mean
Standards based
protocol has
flexibility?
1 2 2 7 15 3 4.4

Use of a
scripted
protocol is
preferred rather
than a standard
based protocol?
8 15 3 3 1 0 2.13

The analysis of Table 12 identifies that the principals surveyed prefer a standards based
protocol to a nonstandards based scripted protocol. There are contrasting modes for the standard
based protocol with 15 principals answering “agree” and the mode for a scripted protocol with
15 principals answering that they “disagree.” The response means have a numerical difference of
2.37 and the difference could have been larger if it wasn’t for the one outlier principal who
“strongly disagreed” with the standards based protocol having flexibility.
The principals surveyed were asked if their evaluation protocol accurately evaluated the
teacher’s knowledge of the content standards and 17 of the 30 principals agreed with this
assertion answering either “somewhat agree” or “agree.” However, 9 of the principals
“disagreed” with this assertion, which lowered the response mean to 3.47, which is closer to
“somewhat-disagree” than “somewhat agree.”
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 68

Further analysis of the survey revealed that only 23% of the principals and their districts
had used any type of calibration protocol to ensure consistency with all evaluators when they
were evaluating their classroom teachers. Furthermore, 63% of the principals responded that
their teachers “somewhat agree” or “agree” the evaluation process is a positive way for them to
improve their instructional practices, but 15 of the 19 principals chose “somewhat agree” as their
response, which dropped the numerical response mean to 3.43.
Principals were then asked if their districts evaluation protocol had a clearly defined
purpose that outlines what they expect of their classroom teachers. Again, 19 of the 30 principals
or 63% of those principals surveyed, agreed that the districts evaluation protocol clearly defines
teacher expectations, with 12 of the principals answering that they “agree” with this assertion.
Law makers have asked that school districts design evaluation protocols that require the
use of student achievement data, which monitors outputs, not inputs and since this value added
model uses external data, the evaluation is viewed as objective not subjective (Papay, 2010).
Based on this information the principals were asked if their districts evaluation protocol
has an added-value component written into it. Based on the principal’s responses the value-added
model is being used sparsely by the districts that agreed to let their principals participate in the
survey. Of the 30 principals surveyed only 3 or 10% of the districts are using some sort of value-
added model and 83% of the principals answered that they “disagree” or “strongly disagree” with
this statement.
Qualitative Data
The efforts to align daily teaching practices with standards that are specific to the
teaching profession has been the goal for many states since the late 1990s with the purpose of
making teachers accountable for student achievement and by making the teacher evaluation
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 69

process important (Mathers et al., 2008; Daley & Kim, 2010). When it came to identifying the
purpose of teacher evaluation, all five of the principals cited student achievement as the main
purpose for teacher evaluation. Principal C stated:
To improve student achievement, to ensure that all students are meeting grade level
standards in the most sufficient and effective manner. By working with teachers to
improve their professional practices, it, in turn, supports student achievement.

Principals A and E also identified the purpose as getting timely feedback to the teachers about
what they observed during the observation, and Principal A went into more depth by using it as
the emphasis on improving the teacher’s overall effectiveness in the classroom. Principal B
stated that the purpose for tenured teachers is to insure they were on a continued positive path by
being in the classroom, and for probationary or nontenured teachers it is to reinforce that the
administration is there to coach and mentor them through their early years as an educator.
The evaluation process for all five of the principals was very similar, with tenured
teachers being evaluated every other year, and nontenured and probationary teachers being
evaluated each of their first 2 years with an option to evaluate them again in their third year at
their school site. The probationary teachers were formally evaluated twice during the school year.
The tenured and nontenured teachers were met with at the beginning of each school year,
and goals were written using the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) or
from the district’s own standards-based evaluation protocol. The probationary teachers were
scheduled for their first formal observation, which must be completed prior to the month of
January. Prior to any formal observation taking place, the principals also scheduled the pre- and
postobservation meetings with the nontenured teachers. This process took place again prior to the
month of March for all nontenured teachers. Tenured teachers who were on cycle for evaluation
were also scheduled for their formal observation with pre- and postobservation meetings
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 70

scheduled as well. All five of the principals interviewed stated that they only needed one formal
observation to be performed per evaluation cycle.
The principals interviewed were asked to detail their experience with the CSTP as their
evaluation tool. All five of the principals had extensive use with the CSTP, but their actual
protocol or procedures were different. Principal A used all six of the standards to evaluate the
effectiveness of his teachers, and he shared a rubric with the teachers in the beginning of the
school year, which allowed the teachers to know exactly what they needed to accomplish to meet
the district standards for their teachers. Principals B, C, and E used portions of the standards and
worked with their teachers on their areas for strength and growth areas during the evaluation
cycle.
Principal D had used the CSTP and its six standards extensively in evaluating his teachers
in prior years, but this school year he had added some new instructional practices that had been
informally worked into the process. Principal D stated:
Had we had this interview last year or the year before, I would have said that was
basically the framework I would hang any commendations or recommendations off of . . .
Recently, the district’s been moving, we’ve had some professional development around
The Essential Elements of Instruction, Madeline Hunter program.
When the five principals were asked about the strengths of the CSTP or any standards-
based evaluation protocol, they all responded that it was easy to follow using the six standards
designed into the CSTP, which made it easy to design rubrics for all parties involved in the
process. Principals B and C also mentioned that it removed the subjectivity from the process and
gave all parties involved in the process a more objective view of the teachers overall body of
work based from these six set standards.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 71

When these same five principals were asked to identify weaknesses within the California
Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP), they felt that the CSTP was a very strong tool
without weakness—with the exception of Principal B, who stated:
The weakness that I see is that it doesn’t deal necessarily with the ongoing developmental
piece. It’s a snapshot in time, but it doesn’t reflect ongoing development, and it doesn’t
reflect personality, idiosyncrasies, or any kind of individualism or uniqueness with the
teacher that you may either want to focus on as an area of growth or commend as an area
of strength.
Principal B still believed that the CSTP was a really valuable tool for teacher evaluation, but it
just didn’t factor in the growth piece needed for teacher growth.
The principals surveyed were asked if they used multiple measures when evaluating their
classroom teachers. All five of the principals stated that they looked at multiple data points when
evaluating the overall strength of a teacher, but were required to use the evaluation protocol
outlined in the teacher contract to determine the effectiveness of a classroom teacher.
Research Question Three
What strategies can be used by a principal to evaluate classroom teachers?
Only principal interviews were used to collect the data for research question number
three, as the researcher believed that the questions would only confuse the person taking a survey.
The five principals interviewed answered detailed initial and probing questions to gather the data
needed to identify the strategies and skills a principal requires to effectively evaluate classroom
teachers.
The principals responded that first and foremost the most important strategy is to find
time in your day to get into the classrooms. Once you are in the classroom, the feedback you give
to a teacher must be accurate and does not always have to be in written form. All five of the
principals interviewed identified the quick conference, which is an informal conference to
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 72

discuss what you have observed in a teacher’s classroom. These conferences offer the
opportunity to praise a teacher on something positive observed in a lesson or to speak to the
teacher about something you might not have understood. The principals stated that in most cases
these conferences occur in a teacher’s classroom after the class ends or during the teachers prep.
Principal B reiterated that she ensured that these quick conferences are not evaluatory because
they are about giving verbal feedback to the teacher quickly after the lesson has been completed.
Principals B found the minute walkthrough to be very informative and a strategy that she
and her assistant principals employed on a regular basis. Principal B stated:
The minute walk-through really works best for me because we have those not nearly as
often as I would like to, but when you do minute walk-throughs that have no pattern,
rhyme, or reason whatsoever and you see the same thing over and over, that’s pretty
clarifying.
Principal E found the minute walkthrough to be informative as well. However, when he
observed teachers not instructing students when he walked into a classroom, he wants to know
why immediately. He will have a quick conversation with the teacher to find out the reason or
reasons why the teacher is not engaged with his or her students. Principal E would also speak to
teachers who are working with their students if the time is appropriate. He would not disturb the
teacher during direct instruction, but really wanted to know the learning objective for the day and
wanted to hear it from the teacher and the students, when possible.
Principal D stated that if you get into the classroom on a regular basis, the teachers feel
more comfortable with the feedback they are receiving. He made it a practice that the feedback
he gives a teacher isn’t always negative. If he continued to see a teacher negatively impacting
student learning, he would use a formal conference to assist the teacher to correct the issues that
he was observing, not a quick conference.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 73

The principals were asked if increasing the frequency of classroom visits would be an
effective strategy, to which all five principals agreed. Principal A stated that he had been a
principal in an elementary, middle, and high school, and at each level the frequency got a lot
more difficult. In elementary, he would get into classrooms twice a week, and at the middle
school he could visit each classroom every 2 weeks. However, high school had been much more
challenging and he had to depend a lot more on his assistant principals to help with this task.
Principal A concluded by stating, “I believe there is no more important part of the principal’s job
than being in classrooms. We got to go. I don't believe there's anything that even comes close to
visibility in the classroom for a principal.” Principal E got into the classrooms as much as he
possibly could. If there was a gap in his schedule, he would get out into the classrooms because
he believed that visibility is vital to improving a teacher’s instructional practices, and this leads
to student achievement.
The principals were asked individually how often they each attempted to get into the
classroom each week. The principals’ answers varied, but most wanted to spend between 6 and
10 hours a week in classrooms. Principal C wanted to spend more than 10 hours a week in the
classroom, but found the managerial side of being a principal a barrier to getting into the
classroom. He quantified this by stating that there are so many things a principal must do outside
of being the instructional leader of a school campus. Meetings, parent complaints, teachers, other
staff, and community leaders who just want time to spend with the principal to voice concerns or
simply catch-up keep principals from getting into the classroom.
Visibility was the most widely agreed upon response from the five principals as the most
essential strategy used to effectively evaluate classroom teachers. However, there was also
consensus about the use of teacher reflection being a valuable tool in the process. Though teacher
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 74

reflection is more widely used during the formal postobservation meeting between the principal
and the teacher, it can also be effectively used after informal observations and walk-throughs as
well.
The use of guiding questions will give more meaning to the reflection piece, according to
the principals who required teachers to answer guiding questions prior to any conference. Per the
principals, these guiding questions should inquire about the learning objective, strengths, and
weaknesses of the lesson, and if there is any aspect of the lesson that you would change in the
future. These are just examples, and any principal can develop his or her own guided reflection
protocol that is more germane to his or her school site. Principal E wanted to make it clear that
these reflections cannot currently be used in the actual evaluation, but that they are a very
practical strategy in getting a better understanding of how effective the teacher is being in the
classroom.
Research Question Four
What are the key elements —if any —of an effective professional development program
that can assist a principal to effectively evaluate classroom teachers?
With the passage of the NCLB, administrators are required to receive training on how to
effectively evaluate classroom teachers (Daley & Kim, 2010). This legislation requires local
school districts to identify the types of training their administrators would need and then move
forward with this training, but due to time constraints, many administrators never received the
training.
Based on this information, the principals who agreed to be surveyed were asked a series
of questions about the professional development they had received to be effective evaluators of
their classroom teachers. The questions were quantitative and qualitative in nature. The
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 75

quantitative questions used a 6-point Likert scale, and the qualitative questions were open-ended
response questions. The principals taking the survey were not required to answer the open-ended
questions; however, 27 out of the 30 principals who agreed to be surveyed answered the open-
ended response questions.
The principals were asked if they received training at any point in their administrative
career in how to effectively evaluate classroom teachers, and if they had received training in
teacher evaluation once they had accepted the position of a high school principal in their current
district. An analysis of the data identified that 21 of the 30 principals surveyed, or 70%, did not
have multiple professional development opportunities in how to effectively evaluate classroom
teachers from their school districts (see Table 13). In comparison, the principals stated in the
survey that 20 of them, or 67%, that their districts did not have dedicated professional
development in how to effectively evaluate their classroom teachers (see Table 13).
Table 13

Comparison of training received as an administrator to training received as a principal in their
current position(n=30)
Element
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Somewhat
Disagree
(3)
Somewhat
Agree
(4)
Agree
(5)
Strongly
Agree
(6)
Response
Mean
District has had
multiple
opportunities for
principals to be
trained in teacher
evaluation?
9 8 4 1 6 2 2.77

When the
principal arrived
in their current
position the
district had PD
dedicated to
teacher
evaluation?
10 9 1 1 4 5 2.83
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 76

Table 13 shows that the mode for both questions is “strongly disagree,” with the response means
being below 3, which keeps both questions in the “disagree” categories. In addition, there is only
a numerical difference of .06 separating the two response means.
In addition to the questions about the training the principals received from their district
offices in teacher evaluation, the researcher wanted to draw an inference between the amount of
training a district gave their principals on the current trends in curriculum and instruction and
those trends in effective teacher evaluation. The principals were asked if the training they
received in curriculum and instruction was equal to the training they received each year in
teacher evaluation. The principals surveyed responded 27 to 3 that they did not receive equal
training each year in teacher evaluation, and 67% of the principals either answered, “Disagree”
or “strongly disagree” to this construct.
Current leadership preparation programs need to include information regarding the
knowledge an administrator needs to effectively evaluate teachers, and this should be a
competency required for completion of the program (Mathers et al., 2008). Based from this
assertion, the principals were asked if their teacher preparation program had prepared them for
how to effectively evaluate classroom teachers. The principals responded 18 to 12 that their
program had not prepared them for how effectively evaluating their classroom teachers. In
comparison, 14 of the principals either responded, “disagree” or “strongly disagree,” to 4
principals who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they felt their program had prepared
them.
The principals were asked to complete two open-ended response questions about the
professional development they received or the type of professional development they would like
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 77

to attend to assist them in evaluating their classroom teachers. The first question that they were
asked is: What type of professional development did you receive in the area of teacher evaluation
that you found most effective? Based on the principals’ responses, six themes emerged from this
question: types of training, mentorship, calibration or scenario training, no training or minimal
training, showed how to fill out some forms, and training in an administration program (see
Table 14). In the area of type of training, one principal stated: “HR Assistant Supt. and Union
President visited each admin. team at each site and went over the procedures, including examples
of effective and ineffective observations/evaluations.”
Another one of the principals surveyed listed that mentorship was very important in
assisting them in teacher evaluation. This principal stated: “A district administrator joined me in
the observation of a lesson and the post conference with the teacher. After the post conference
the district person went over recommendations related to my evaluation of the teacher. This was
very helpful.”
A notable analysis of the open-ended responses from the principals was that seven of
them had never received any type of training or very minimal at best in the area of teacher
evaluation. Of the seven who had not received any training, three of the principals simply
responded “none.” Another principal had received some minimal training and stated: “In 12
years as an administrator, I have only received one formal PD in the area of teacher evaluations.
That was about three years ago. I have learned from my colleagues and from trial and error.”
One of the principals surveyed had received professional development in calibration with
the use of scenarios. This principal stated: “Calibration with other administrators, specific
training in the essential elements of effective instruction and direct interactive training.”

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 78

Table 14

Themes from the Open-Ended Survey Response Question. What Type of Professional
Development Did You Receive in the Area of Teacher Evaluation That You Found Most
Effective? (n = 27)
Themes Frequency
Types of Training 9

Mentorship 3

Calibration and Scenario Training 2

No Training or Minimal Training 7

Showed How to Fill Out the Forms 4

Training in an Administration Program 2

To complete the open-ended responses, the principals were asked: What type of
professional development would you like to attend that would assist you in better evaluating all
of your classroom teachers? Based from the principal’s responses, five themes emerged from
analysis of the data: alignment and calibration, basic skills, CSTP training, any training, and
collaborate with other districts (see Table 15). One of the principals who responded to the second
open-ended survey question stated:
New administrators would benefit from simulating formal observations of a variety of
videotaped lessons, with opportunities to collaborate about what they saw, what was
important to note, what reflective questions could be asked of the teacher being observed,
etc. I have always found that conversations following an observation, based on the
reflective questions posed during the observations have been the most valuable and have
been the basis for positive changes in the classroom.

The principals discussed in the basic skills theme just wanting some professional
development that would help them get through their regular day. Some of the topics that were
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 79

discussed were instructional rounds, formal observation and walk-through training, and time
management. Some additional training was wanted in the area of the CSTP. One of the principals
surveyed stated:
If we had a CSTP protocol in my district, I'd love to attend professional development
related to using the CSTPs in the evaluation of teachers. Of course, since we're not
currently using the CSTPs, it wouldn't be especially valuable at this time.

Several of the other principals wanted to meet with other districts to collaborate on best
instructional practices and to see what methods they used to document teacher evaluations.
Whereas some principals just wanted some sort of professional development in teacher
evaluation, others wanted a coherent approach so the teachers would know what to expect from
the evaluation process.

Table 15

Themes from the Open-Ended Survey Response Question. What Type of Professional
Development Would You Like to Attend That Would Assist You in Better Evaluating All of Your
Classroom Teachers? (n = 26)
Themes Frequency
Alignment and Calibration 8

Basic Skills 10

California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) 3

Any Training 3

Collaborate with other Districts 2

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 80

Qualitative Data
All five of the principals interviewed stated that they had received training in their
current evaluation system to include the observation protocol, with the exception of Principal B,
who stated:
None from the district. I got the principal that I worked with in my first term as AP was
incredibly helpful, but that was not a district thing. That was something that he did on his
own, because he believed it to be very important, and I still use all of his methodologies
and everything to this day, but from the district, nothing.
However, only Principal C stated that they received some professional development annually in
teacher evaluation, and he was quick to point add that he believed the reason for the annual
training was that the district had used many evaluation protocols over the years. Additionally,
Principals D and E stated that they never received any follow-up training on teacher evaluation,
which they found problematic. Principal A was very pleased with the training in the area of
teacher evaluation from his district. His training was performed by their assistant superintendent
of human resources, and he felt she was detail oriented, covered all aspects of the protocol, and
gave each administrator exemplars to use as models when they performed their own observations.
Principal A also stated that this training was performed at the beginning of each school year,
which helped administrators get better at the process and be more effective evaluators of the
classroom teachers.
The principals were asked if they had received any recent training from outside sources to
assist them in evaluating their classroom teachers. Principal D was the only principal who had
any training recently from an outside source—that being the Madeline Hunter Essential Elements
training he had received this school year. The other four principals had not received any current
training from any outside source, but would welcome any training that could help them become
better evaluators of their classroom teachers.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 81

Research Question Summaries
Question #1
What requisite knowledge of the content standards must a principal have to effectively
evaluate classroom teachers?
Based on the survey and interview results in the construct of the principals needing or
requiring them to have content knowledge of the teachers they are evaluating, the principals did
not believe this was a requisite. Only 13 of the principals surveyed agreed with this statement,
and of those 13 only five either “agreed” or “strongly agreed.”
The five principals who were interviewed had less of a consensus toward principals
needing content knowledge to effectively evaluate their classroom teachers, with only three of
the principals believing it could assist them as principals; but they still did not see it as a
requirement. The majority of the principals who participated in the study responded that having
knowledge of research-based instructional strategies was more important to them than content
knowledge.
When the principals were asked if they would consider the use of a co-evaluator in a
situation in which they did not have the specific content knowledge, 73% surveyed responded
that they would use a co-evaluator. However, when they were asked if they would consider the
use of an outside secondary evaluator, this percentage dropped to 57%. The interview data
indicated that only two of the principals were in favor of the use of a co-evaluator, and they
qualified their statements by asserting that the co-evaluator must be one of their assistant
principals.
After comparing the quantitative and qualitative data for this research question, the
researcher found that the principals would rather have extensive knowledge in research-based
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 82

best-practice instructional strategies than content knowledge. Having content knowledge is not a
requisite for effectively evaluating their classroom teachers, and they would consider the use of a
co-evaluator as long as he or she had training in this area and the co-evaluator was an assistant
principal assigned to his or her school site.
Question #2
Would using the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) be an effective
evaluation tool and protocol for evaluating classroom teachers?
After analyzing the data from the surveys and interviews, the researcher found that an
overwhelming majority of the principals who participated in the research study believed the
CSTP was an effective tool for evaluating their classroom teachers. Of the 30 principals
surveyed, 27, or 90%, of them agreed that the CSTP was effective, and all five of the principals
interviewed concurred. The majority of the principals found the CSTP has the flexibility built
into the process, which allows the principals to evaluate all of their classroom teachers equally,
not just their core teachers. During the interviews, Principal B stated that the CSTP did not
contain an area for teacher development and growth, which could stifle the growth of an
individual teacher. However, the other four principals interviewed could not identify weaknesses
within the CSTP.
The majority of the principals surveyed responded that they used multiple measures when
evaluating their classroom teachers. The five principals interviewed used multiple measures
when evaluating the overall effectiveness of their teachers, but only the information observed in
the teacher’s formal observation could be used in the evaluation.
After comparing the quantitative and qualitative data for this research question, the
researcher found that the majority of the principals believed that the CSTP is a strong and
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 83

effective process for evaluating their classroom teachers. The principals found that the six
standards contained within the CSTP directly correlated with the professional responsibilities of
the classroom teachers in their school districts. This process also made it easier for principals and
other site administrators to develop evaluation rubrics so that all of the teachers were being
evaluated equally at each school site.
The scripted methods process many of them used when they were first administrators and
later principals was too subjective and relied on the evaluator’s own personal experiences and
biases. The CSTP is a more objective approach, and with the developed rubrics, all of the
stakeholders involved in the evaluation process know what is expected of them at each level of
the process.
Question #3
What strategies can be used by a principal to evaluate classroom teachers?
After analyzing the qualitative semi-structured interview data, the researcher found that
three themes emerged from the interviews as the most important strategies used by the principals.
First, principal visibility was extremely important. Second, accurate and timely feedback was
given to the teachers about what was being observed in their classrooms. Third, it was valuable
for teachers to reflect on their instructional practices prior to a conference with the principal
about the lesson they delivered during the observation.
The principals all agreed that the most important strategy that a principal could employ
was visibility. Being in the classrooms and conducting observations and walk-throughs of
varying lengths are extremely important to student achievement and improving teacher
instructional practices. However, for these classroom visitations to be most effective, they must
be performed on a consistent basis. Along with visibility comes timely, accurate feedback to the
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 84

teachers about what is being observed in the classroom. This feedback can be written or oral, but
needs to occur quickly. The principals all agreed that the quick conference was the most
effective—that is, meeting their teachers in their classroom during their prep or during class
time—if the principal could find an appropriate time that did not disrupt the teacher as he or she
delivered a lesson. Finally, the principals believed that the use of teacher reflections were another
important strategy because the reflection and its guiding questions drove the conference and gave
meaning to the overall evaluation process because the teachers were able to discuss what they
observed to be their strengths and areas for growth. Based on this data analysis from the
interviews with the five high school principal’s visibility, timely feedback, and teacher reflection
are three strategies that are the driving force behind these five principals effectively evaluating
their own classroom teachers.
Question #4
What are the key elements —if any —of an effective professional development program
that can assist a principal to effectively evaluate classroom teachers?
After analyzing the quantitative surveys, open-ended survey questions, and qualitative
semi-structured interviews of the principals who participated in the study, the researcher found
that 70% of the principals surveyed stated that they had not received training in the area of
teacher evaluation from their current school district. In addition to not receiving basic training on
teacher evaluation, 67% of the principals surveyed had not received training in how to use their
current evaluation protocol.
The principals who answered the open-ended survey questions really wanted and needed
training in how to use and complete their own evaluation protocol used in their current school
districts. Two themes that emerged from the open-ended responses were that the principals
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 85

wanted to receive training in alignment and calibrated with their evaluation protocol so that all
teachers were being evaluated equally by all of the administrators at their school sites. The
principals were using the CSTP and other standards-based evaluation protocols, but they had
received minimal training in the use of the protocol, and there was very little follow-up training
based on the responses to the open-ended survey questions and the semi-structured interview
questions. During the interviews two of the principals responded that they had received some
sort of training in the area of teacher evaluation. Principal A was the only principal who found
his district’s training beneficial and who received follow-up training at the beginning of each
school year.
After comparing the quantitative and qualitative responses, the researcher found that the
data indicate that the principals were receiving very little training in the area of teacher
evaluation and how to use their own district’s evaluation protocol. The data and research
indicates that the key elements for the principals to become effective evaluators of their
classroom teachers is to receive annual training in the district’s evaluation protocol. Chapter Five
follows with the findings, implications, limitations, and the suggestions for further research
presented within the chapter.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 86

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
During the latter part of the 20th century, and now into the 21st century, lawmakers and
policymakers have demanded continued growth and improvement in all schools throughout the
United States. The Local Education Agency (LEA) has been assigned the task of improving the
schools within their districts, and much of the emphasis has been placed on principals to ensure
consistent growth on their campuses (Davis et al., 2005; Zerger, 1988).
As confidence in the public school system began to diminish, lawmakers in the State of
California instituted the Stull Bill in 1971, as their system for holding teachers, administrators,
and district personnel accountable for student achievement (Price, 1973). The Stull Bill
legislation required each principal at a school site to meet with all of his or her certificated staff,
which includes classroom teachers, to write goals and objectives each school year (Price, 1973).
The State of California was hopeful that this legislation and the process it entailed would assist
the districts to identify marginally effective teachers and expose principals who struggled with
the change from building manager to instructional leader (Price, 1973).
School districts across the State of California saw some marginal gains in student
achievement data, but this was found initially in more affluent school districts, while large urban
school districts continued to struggle with student improvement on their campuses. The greatest
barrier to success of the Stull Bill was the legislation requiring the LEA to meet with local
bargaining units to discuss and plan its implementation, which required language changes in the
contract that reference the teacher evaluation process. Most of the LEAs were not successful in
this endeavor, and the status quo allowed marginal educators to remain in the classroom.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 87

In 1997, the California Commission on Teaching Credentialing (CCTC) adopted the
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) (Whitaker et al., 2001). The CSTP was
the first standards-based system that would be valid throughout the State of California, and it
contained six standards specific to classroom teachers. This removed subjectivity from the
process and placed the emphasis on teacher competency, not the principals personal views or
bias.
This chapter provides a summary of the research study, purpose of the study,
methodology used in the study, and summary finding of the four research questions identified in
Chapter One of this research study. It also includes the limitations, implications for practice,
recommendations for future research, and the researcher’s conclusions of the study.
Statement of the Problem
Students achieving at high levels in the classroom is the primary goal for all schools, and
the person accountable for this growth is the principal. With the change from building manager
to instructional leader, there has been a paradigm shift on campuses throughout the United States.
With principals now being held accountable for all of their students achieving at high levels, they
are required to be in the classroom verifying that the students are receiving a rigorous and
relevant education. For decades, teachers had been left alone in their classrooms to choose the
curriculum they preferred to teach. With the shift in accountability, principals are requiring their
teachers to collaborate with their colleagues and design a standards-based curriculum that has
lessons that will be delivered by each member of their department.
With principals locked into their daily routines of meetings and paperwork, these early
accountability measures failed because the principals never received the training they would
need to become effective instructional leaders on their school campuses. As such, a study into
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 88

the leadership skills, knowledge, and training required of high school principals to effectively
evaluate classroom teachers is warranted.
Purpose of the Study
This research study was designed to identify the competencies required of high school
principals to effectively evaluate and identify marginally effective classroom teachers. Through
this process, the researcher sought to identify high school principals who had been successful
with a standards-based evaluation protocol that uses the standards for the teaching profession as
its outline for success.
Research Questions
The following questions guided this research study:
1. What requisite knowledge of the content standards must a principal have to
effectively evaluate classroom teachers?
2. Would using the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) be an
effective evaluation tool and protocol for evaluating classroom teachers?
3. What strategies can be used by a principal to evaluate classroom teachers?
4. What are the key elements—if any—of an effective professional development
program that can assist a principal to effectively evaluate classroom teachers?
Methodology
This study used peer-reviewed scholarly literature that had researched the leadership
skills, knowledge, and training required of high school principals to effectively evaluate
classroom teachers. The researcher utilized a survey and semi-structured interview questions to
gather the data for this study. The survey consisted of questions using a 6-point Likert scale, with
the respondents answering either strongly agree, agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree,
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 89

disagree, or strongly disagree. In addition, to the Likert-scale questions, there were two optional
open-ended response questions asked of the principals. Of the 30 principals who agreed to take
the survey, five were identified for interviews based on their school site’s free and reduced lunch
student population.
Summary of Findings
Research Question #1: What requisite knowledge of the content standards must a
principal have to effectively evaluate classroom teachers?
The principals overwhelmingly responded that a principal does not need to be a content
specialist or have specific knowledge of the standards being taught by a classroom teacher to
evaluate the effectiveness of a classroom teacher. The principals believed it is of greater
importance to have a good working knowledge of research-based instructional techniques and
strategies. The overarching theme that came from the principals was that they should be aware of
the standards and that this was the extent of knowledge required of the principals to effectively
evaluate their classroom teachers. The research study does not corroborate previous research that
a principal must be a content specialist to effectively evaluate his or her classroom teachers.
Research question #2: Would using the California Standards for the Teaching Profession
(CSTP) be an effective evaluation tool and protocol for evaluating classroom teachers?
The findings indicated that a standards-based evaluation protocol like the CSTP was a
valuable tool for evaluating the effectiveness of a classroom teacher. A system that uses the
standards for the teaching profession and its identified competencies allows the teacher to know
exactly what the principal would be looking for during a formal observation. It gives the teacher
the comfort of knowing that he or she will be evaluated based on these standards—not based on
the principal’s own personal bias. Of the CSTP—even though it has competencies written into
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 90

the document, the principals stated that it still allows the principal the flexibility they need to
effectively evaluate all of the teachers at their school.
The research study found that during an evaluation cycle, the principals used multiple
sources of data when evaluating their classroom teachers’ overall effectiveness, including:
informal classroom walk-throughs, student achievement data, and student interviews. However;
they were only able to use what they observed during the formal observation in the actual
evaluation document.
Research question #3: What strategies can be used by a principal to evaluate classroom
teachers?
The research study found three emergent themes: (a) visibility, (b) accurate and timely
feedback, (c) teacher reflections that emerged from the five principals’ semi-structured
interviews. Increasing the frequency of classroom walk-throughs is crucial to improving a
teacher’s instructional practice, which has a direct correlation with greater student achievement.
As the principal increases the amount of time on classroom walk-throughs, it is vital to give
accurate and timely feedback to the teachers. The feedback should be presented either
immediately or within hours of the walk-through so important aspects of the lesson are not
forgotten by either the principal or the teacher.
The final theme discussed by the principals is the teacher reflection that occurs during a
post-observation conference, which is assigned to the teacher prior to that conference. This
strategy allows the teacher to self-reflect on what he or she perceives are the strengths and
weaknesses of the lesson. This step in the process validates and gives meaning to the evaluation
protocol because the teacher feels included in the process as his or her voice is being heard
through the reflection responses.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 91

Research Question #4: What are the key elements —if any —of an effective professional
development program that can assist a principal to effectively evaluate classroom teachers?
The findings in the area of staff development were quite concerning, as many principals
stated that they had received training in their district’s evaluation protocol, but that the training
was inconsistent and did not have the same importance as the training required of administrators
in the area of curriculum and instruction. The principals wanted and needed additional training in
the area of teacher evaluation and wanted this training to be on an annual basis. Many of the
principals who took the survey, and those who agreed to be interviewed, had never received
training in how to use their district’s evaluation protocol, and thus relied on colleagues or
mentors to get them through the process. There is this perception that the principals have this
knowledge prior to accepting the position of principal, even if the position accepted is in another
school district. This research study has identified that the crucial element of any professional
development in teacher evaluation is that training must be ongoing and cannot end once a person
has been promoted to the level of principal.
Limitation of the Study
The limitation of this study is the small survey sample size. To qualify for the research
study, a principal had to be a second-year principal, as he or she would have collected data on the
use of a standards-based evaluation protocol. There were 98 principals who qualified for the
study, but only 30 agreed to participate in the research study. In addition, the survey and
interview results obtained during the research study were the opinions of the principals; thus the
information gathered could reflect the principals’ own personal biases.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 92

Implications for Practice
Based on the findings in this research study and prior research in the area of teacher
evaluation, the following implications for the use of the data obtained in this research study
should be considered by school districts and site principals to develop the leadership skills,
knowledge, and training required of high school principals to effectively evaluate classroom
teachers.
 Principals need to be knowledgeable and trained in research-based instructional
techniques and strategies if they are going to be effective evaluators of their
classroom teachers.
 Without placing focus on the content being instructed by the teacher during an
observation, the principal must be able to document the instructional practices the
teacher used during the lesson if the evaluation process is going to be meaningful.
 Principals need training in how to use their district’s evaluation protocol so they
can successfully evaluate their classroom teachers per the teacher contract.
 The use of a standards-based evaluation protocol designed around the standards
for the teaching profession must be used if a principal is going to be able to
identify marginally effective classroom teachers.
 In the end, it comes down to the principal being accountable to his or her
clients—that is, the students who attend the school.
Recommendations for Future Research
As the data were collected and analyzed from the surveys and the semi-structured
interviews about the leadership skills, knowledge, and training required of high school principals
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 93

to effectively evaluate classroom teachers, other topics for future consideration became apparent
and warrant additional investigation.
1. Research into teacher evaluation can be expanded to include all of the State of
California to ensure a larger sample of high school principals.
2. There could be two additional research studies using the research on teacher
evaluation on the leadership skills, knowledge, and training required of principals at
the elementary and middle school levels.
3. The frequency that a principal should be in a classroom is not defined by the literature.
A study that utilizes surveys and interviews of superintendents and principals will
better define the amount of time that a site principal should spend in the classroom.
4. Identify research-based teacher evaluation protocols that have successfully been used
in a value-added component and how they were able to bring the local bargaining unit
on board with the process.
Conclusions
There has been considerable change in education over the past 25 years in that students
and their families have other options than the comprehensive high schools in their neighborhood.
Parents are looking for that accountability piece that has been lacking in public education, and if
the principal is not holding teachers accountable and requiring that teachers provide a quality
education for all of his or her students, the parents will move their child to another school.
Previous research into the knowledge required of principals stated that the principal must
be a content specialist to effectively evaluate classroom teachers (Hill & Grossman, 2013).
However, the high school principals surveyed and interviewed did not support this finding; they
believed that having a good working knowledge of the standards was sufficient to evaluate their
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 94

classroom teachers. This was an essential finding in the research study and required additional
probing questions to be asked of the interview participants. The principals’ overriding belief was
that a principal needed to be an expert in instructional strategy and theory—not an expert in all
of the standards for all of the courses taught on a comprehensive high school campus.
The use of a standards-based evaluation protocol like the CSTP or similar protocol
designed from the CSTP is crucial in the evaluation of all classroom teachers. However, a key
finding in the research was that many districts are currently using some form of a standards-
based evaluation protocol, but that the principals are receiving little or no training in how to
effectively use their district’s system. This gap turns a highly effective protocol into a highly
ineffective approach to evaluating classroom teachers.
In closing, today’s principal must be visible on campus and spend quality time in the
classroom observing their teachers. When classroom instruction is lacking, the principal must
have courageous conversations with the teacher; but the principal must also have the skill,
knowledge, and training to complete this task effectively. Another essential finding is the
importance of having teachers reflect on their own body of work observed by a principal during a
formal observation, which allows teachers to have a meaningful discussion with their principal
during the post-conference meeting. If marginal teachers are allowed to remain in classrooms
throughout the United States, our students will never properly receive the rigorous and relevant
education they deserve.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 95

References
Bernstein, E. (2004). What teacher evaluation should know and be able to do: A commentary.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 88(639), 80–88.
Catano, N., & Stronge, J. H. (2006). What are principals expected to do? Congruence between
principal evaluation and performance standards. National Association of Secondary
School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 221–237.
Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC). (2009).
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). Sacramento, CA: Commission
on Teaching Credentialing.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publishing.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Daley, G., & Kim, L. (2010). A teacher evaluation system that works (Working Paper). Santa
Monica, CA: National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. Retrieved November 16,
2013, from http://www.tapsystem.org/publications/wp_eval.pdf
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation: To enhance professional practice.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership
study: Developing successful principals. Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Palo
Alto: Stanford University.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 96

Elmore, R. F. (2003). A Plea for Strong Practice. Educational Leadership, November 2003,
61(3), www.ascd.org.
Elmuti, D., Minnis, W., & Abebe, M. (2005). Does education have a role in developing
leadership skills? Management Decision, 43(7/8), 1018–1029
Everson, K. C., Feinauer, E., & Sudweeks, R. R. (2013). Rethinking teacher evaluation: A
conversation about statistical inferences and value-added models. Harvard Educational
Review, 83(2), 349–358.
Hill, H. C., & Grossman, P. (2013). Learning from teacher observations: Challenges and
opportunities posed by new teacher evaluation systems. Harvard Educational Review,
83(2), 371–401
Hochschild, J. L., & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American dream and the public schools. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Holland, P. (2006). The case for expanding standards for teacher evaluation to include an
instructional supervision perspective. Springer Science Business Media, LLC, 18, 67–77.
doi: DOI 10.1007/s11092-006-9009-0
Kane, T. J., Taylor, E. S., Tyler, J. H., & Wooten, A. L. (2011). Evaluating teacher effectiveness.
Education Next, 11(3), 55–60.
Kersten, T. A., & Israel, M. S. (2005). Teacher evaluation: Principals' insights and suggestions
for improvement. ProQuest Research Library, 36(1&2), 47–67.
Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.
Retrieved from http//www.cepa.gse.rutgers.edu/whatweknow.pdf
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 97

Leithwood, K. A, Seashore, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning: A review of research for the learning from leadership project.
Learning form Leadership Project, New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Mathers, C., Oliva, M., & Laine, S. W. M. (2008). Improving instruction through effective
teacher evaluation: Options for states and districts. National Comprehensive Center for
Teacher Quality. Washington, D.C., 1–16.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mitgang, L. D. (2008). Becoming a leader: Preparing school principals for today’s schools.
Perspective. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation, 1–11.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk. The Imperative for
Education Reform. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001). Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 98

Orr, M. T. (2007). How preparation influences school leaders and their school improvement:
Comparing exemplary and conventionally prepared principals. American Education
Research Association. The Wallace Foundation 1–34.
Otterman, S. (2011, July 4). Union shifts position on teacher evaluation. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/us/05teachers.html
Papay, J. P. (2012). Refocusing the debate: Assessing the purposes and tools of teacher
evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 123–167
Pepper, K. (2010). Effective principals skillfully balance leadership styles to facilitate student
success: A focus for the reauthorization of ESEA. Planning and Changing, 41(1/2), 42–
56.
Peterson, K. (2004). Research on schoolteacher evaluation. National Association of Secondary
School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 88(639), 60–71.
Price, N. C. (1973). The principal and the Stull Act. NASSP Bulletin, 57(376), 66-72
doi: 10.1177/019263657305737611
Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals.
National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from
http://www.friscoisd.org/ly/departments/professionalDev/documents/DesigningPowerful
ProfessionalDevelopmentforTeachersandPrincipals_000.pdf
Stronge, J. H. (2006). Teacher evaluation and school improvement: Improving the educational
landscape. In Evaluating Teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education.
Education Sector Reports, 1–27.
Retrieved from http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/RushToJudgment_ES_Jan08.pdf
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 99

Weiss, E. M., & Weiss, S. G. (1998). New Directions in Teacher Evaluation. ERIC Digest.
Whittaker, A., Snyder, J., & Freeman, S. (2001). Restoring balance: A chronology of the
development and uses of the California standards for the teaching profession. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 28(1), 85–107.
Zerger, K. L. (1988). Teacher evaluation and collective bargaining: A union perspective. Journal
of Law & Education, 17(3), 507–525.
Zimmerman, S., & Deckert-Pelton, M. (2003). Evaluating the evaluators: Teachers' perceptions
of the principal's role in professional evaluation. National Association of Secondary
School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87(636), 28–37.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 100

Appendix A
Interview/Survey Protocol

University of Southern California

Interview Cover Sheet
______________________________________________________________________________

Name of Researcher: Steve James Date of Interview:
Name of Interviewee: Job Title:
Years in your current Position: Location of Interview:
Authorizer’s Phone Number: Authorizer’s Email Address:
Interview Start Time: Interview End Time:
______________________________________________________________________________

Introduction:
Good (Morning, afternoon, Evening) [Interviewee’s name]. My name is Steven James and I am a
doctoral student at the University of Southern California. I want to thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to interview you. The interview that I will be conducting is a standardized open
ended interview with the goal and purpose of learning the leadership skills, knowledge, and
training required of high school principals’ to effectively evaluate classroom teachers. This is a
fact finding interview with no right or wrong answers so please answer as truthfully as possible.

As part of the process I am interviewing high school principals who work in Southern California.
During the conversation, I am hoping to learn more about your evaluation protocols and how you
and your district conduct evaluations of your classroom teachers.

I will be writing a report based on my findings in the interviews that I will be conducting and I
want to ensure you that the information gathered from our conversation will remain confidential.
I would like to tape record the interview so that I will have an accurate record of our
conversation. Would that be okay? (Yes / No). I will also be taking some field notes as a
secondary option for capturing the information discussed during our interview.

The interview should take approximately 45 minutes and can be stopped at anytime per your
request. Do you have any questions of me before we begin?

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 101

Interview Questions

1. What is the purpose of the teacher evaluation process in your district?
2. Describe the entire teacher evaluation process you use to evaluate your classroom
teachers? [Pre-observation conference, observation, and Post-Observation Conference]
3. Describe your experience with the California Standards for the Teaching Profession
(CSTP) as an evaluation tool?
4. What are the strengths of using a standards-based evaluation system like the CSTP as an
evaluation tool?
5. Have you found there to be weaknesses in using the CSTP?
6. What specific element of the CSTP process do you find effective, and why?
7. Do you use multiple measures in your evaluation protocol to evaluate the performance of
your teachers? [Observations, student achievement data, and teacher reflection etc.]
8. Describe the professional development (PD) you received from your school district in the
evaluation process? [Follow-up question: Was the PD effective? If, (not / yes) why was
it / or why wasn’t effective.]
9. What type of PD did you receive from outside sources that assisted you in effectively
evaluating your classroom teachers? [Follow-up Q: If not, what PD would be helpful in
assisting you to be more effective in evaluating your classroom teachers?]
10. What specific leadership skill do you believe is required of a high school principal to
effectively evaluate classroom teachers, and why?
11. Does a principal need to be knowledgeable of the content standards to effectively
evaluate classroom teachers? [i.e.; ELA, Math, Social Science etc.]
12. Would you consider using a co-evaluator if you did not have a good working knowledge
of the content being instructed during an observation of a classroom teacher? [Follow-up
Q’s: if, yes, who would you use as the co-evaluator and why.] If not, explain why.]
13. What strategies do you use to effectively evaluate the performance of your classroom
teachers? [Observations, 3-5 minute walkthroughs, quick conferences, student and parent
feedback etc.]
14. Does increasing the frequency of your classrooms visit make a difference in teacher
quality at your school? [Why and why not?]
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 102

15. Are you satisfied with your districts evaluation protocol and its effectiveness in
identifying highly qualified and marginally qualified classroom teachers? [Explain]

Final Statement.
If I have any additional or follow-up questions may I contact you? (Yes / No). I want to again
thank you [Interviewee’s name] for participating this [morning, afternoon, evening] in assisting
with my research. I know how important your time is and your responses have been extremely
helpful.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 103

Appendix B
Effective Teacher Evaluation Questionnaire

Survey Questionnaire
Overview of the Study
Welcome and thank you for participating in this study of the leadership skills,
knowledge, and training required of high school principals to effectively evaluate
classroom teachers. The University of Southern California (USC) is sponsoring this study
through the Rossier School Of Education. Your voluntary participation is completely
anonymous. No identifying information will be collected and the data collected will
remain password protected on electronic devices and any hardcopy data will remain
under lock and key.
The purpose of this study is to explore what is required of a principal to be an
effective evaluator of their certificated classroom teachers and what skills, knowledge
and training is required to get them to this level of competency to identify and document
highly qualified and marginal classroom teachers.
The survey was designed to be short and easy to maneuver through to allow for a
maximum of 15 minutes to complete. Again, I want to thank you for taking time out of
your day to complete this survey and assist me in completing my study.

Directions
Please answer the following questions as completely and accurately as possible.
Background Information (Circle 1)
1. Number of years as an administrator:
0-1 yrs. 2-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs. 11-15 15 yrs. +
2. Number of years as a high school principal:
0-1 yrs. 2-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs. 11-15 15 yrs. +
3. Number of years in your current position as a high school principal:
1-2 yrs. 2-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs. 11-15 15 yrs. +
4. Gender:
Male Female
5. Education Level
MA/MS Ed.D/Ph.D. (Currently in a program) Ed.D/Ph.D
School Demographics
6. Total number of students enrolled in your school
500 or less 501 – 1000 1,001 – 2000 2001 – 2500 2500 and above

7. Type of school
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 104

Comprehensive HS Magnet School HS Charter School HS
8. School’s Annual Performance Indicator (API)
Below 600
600 – 699
700 – 750
750 – 799
Above 800

9. Is your school identified as Title 1?

Yes
No

10. What percentage of your student population is identified as an English Language
Learner?

0 – 25%
26 – 50%
51 – 75%
76 – 100%

Part 1. Elements of the Teacher Evaluation Process (Circle 1)
11. Type of Evaluation Process Used
Use of all six standards California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP)
Partial use of the standards (CSTP)
Your districts own standards based system
Other standards based system

12. Has your district created a rubric that you use during an observation?
Yes
No

13. Are classroom observations performed separate from the End of Year Evaluation?
Yes
No

14. How often tenured teachers are formally observed?
3 or more times a year
1-2 times a year
Every other year
Every five years
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 105

Never

15. According to your districts collective bargaining agreement, how often should you
formally observe your tenured teachers?
3 or more times a year
1-2 times a year
Every other year
Every five years
Not specified

Part II. Teacher Evaluation Process
Please read the following statements and answer them based on your own beliefs and
opinions as they pertain to your districts evaluation system and protocol. Your responses will
remain confidential. Please rate each statement using the following six point Likert scale and
circle your response.

16. To effectively evaluate a classroom teacher the evaluator must be knowledgeable of
the content being instructed in the classroom?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

17. To effectively evaluate a classroom teacher the evaluator must only know instructional
best practices as they pertain to how the lesson is delivered by the teacher?
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
18. It would be appropriate to use a co-evaluator who has specific content knowledge
about the lesson being evaluated, to effectively evaluate the quality of the lesson being
observed?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 106

19. It would be appropriate to use a secondary evaluator from another site or the district
office to evaluate the teachers on your campus, if they have the specific content
knowledge needed to effectively evaluate a classroom teacher?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

20. The evaluation protocol in your district is designed to reflect the teachers everyday
teaching practices observed during a formal observation?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

21. The evaluator spends sufficient time in the classroom during a formal observation?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

22. The evaluation protocol for your district uses teacher reflections as an integral part of
the evaluation process?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

23. The pre and post conferences are vital to any effective evaluation tool or protocol?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 107

 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

24. The feedback given to teachers during the evaluation post-conference is timely,
informative and designed to assist the teacher to improve as an educator?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

25. The teacher evaluation protocol gives an accurate evaluation of the teacher’s
knowledge of the content standards?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

26. A standards based evaluation protocol designed around the California Standards for
the Teaching Professions (CSTP) is an effective system to evaluate classroom
teachers?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

27. As a principal I would rather have an evaluation protocol that is scripted and does not
rely on a standards based system to evaluate teachers?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 108

28. A standards based evaluation protocol gives you the flexibility to effectively evaluate
all teachers at your site?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

29. The teachers at your site see the evaluation process as a positive way to improve their
instructional practices and improve their performance as an educator?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

30. The evaluation protocol in your district uses multiple measures to evaluate teacher
performance?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

31. The evaluation protocol used in your district has a value-added component that uses
student achievement data as a vital part of the evaluation process?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

32. The evaluation protocol used in your district uses multiple observations as a
requirement for a single evaluation?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 109

 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

33. Your districts evaluation protocol has a clearly defined purpose that outlines what is
expected of all teachers in your district?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

34. The school district has used a calibration protocol to ensure that the overall accuracy
of the teacher evaluation system is accurate throughout the district?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

35. My district has multiple opportunities for principals to receive training in how to
effectively and accurately evaluate classroom teachers?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

36. When you arrived at your current position your district had professional development
dedicated to teacher evaluation?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
LEADERSHIP SKILLS 110

 Strongly Agree

37. The professional development you receive each year in teacher evaluation from your
district is equal to the professional development you receive each year in Curriculum
and Instruction?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

38. Did the university you used to obtain your administrative credential sufficiently
prepare you to evaluate classroom teachers?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

39. Are you able to spend sufficient quality time in the classroom to accurately evaluate
the performance of your teachers?

 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Somewhat Disagree
 Somewhat Agree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

Part III. Open ended response. This item is optional
Please respond to the two open-ended response questions.

40.
a. What type of professional development did you receive in the area of teacher
evaluation that you found most effective?
b. What type of professional development would you like to attend that would
assist you in better evaluating all of your classroom teachers.

I want to again thank you for taking the time to take this survey. All of the data will remain
confidential.

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 111

Appendix C
Survey Cover Letter: Superintendent

Date:
Dear (Superintendent Name),

I am conducting a survey on the leadership skills, knowledge, and training high school principals
need to effectively evaluate classroom teachers, and I want to invite your district to participate in
the study. This study is being conducted under the guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita, as part of my
doctoral program at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California.

I understand your time and the time of your high school principals is extremely valuable. With
your approval I would like your high school principals to complete a survey of forty questions
that will take approximately 15 minutes, and participation in the survey is strictly voluntary and
the participants will remain anonymous. Once I receive your permission to move forward with
the survey I will send a letter to your high school principals with a specific link to surveymonkey,
where they can complete the survey. If you would email me at stevenja@usc.edu stating that you
will allow the survey to be conducted I can then move forward with contacting your principals.

Your districts participation in the survey will be much appreciated and will assist me in
identifying strategies and practices used by principals to effectively evaluate their classroom
teachers. There are no known risks or costs associated with your principals participation in this
study.

I want to thank you in advance for your time. Please contact me if you have any questions at all.

Sincerely,

Steven James
Doctoral Candidate
USC UPIRB # UP-14-00064

LEADERSHIP SKILLS 112

Appendix D
Survey Recruitment Letter: Principal

Date:
Dear (Principal’s Name),

I am conducting a survey on the leadership skills, knowledge, and training high school principals
need to effectively evaluate classroom teachers, and I want to invite you to participate in the
study. I contacted your superintendent (Superintendents Name) and they gave me permission to
contact you and request your permission to participate in my research study. This study is being
conducted under the guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita, as part of my doctoral program at the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California.

I understand your time is extremely valuable. With your approval I would like you to complete a
survey of forty questions that will take approximately 15 minutes, and your participation in the
survey is strictly voluntary and anonymous. Your participation in this study is invaluable to my
research and email me at stevenja@usc.edu, if you will agree to be a participant in my research
study. You will then be sent a direct link to the survey.

Your participation in the survey is much appreciated and will assist me in identifying strategies
and practices used by principals to effectively evaluate their classroom teachers. There are no
known risks or costs associated with your participation in this study.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3ZTMG75

I want to thank you in advance for your time and support. Please contact me if you have any
questions at all.

Sincerely,

Steven James
Doctoral Candidate

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study is to explore what abilities are required for a principal to be an effective evaluator of classroom teachers, and what skills, knowledge, and training is required to reach this level of competency. The study was narrowed and was designed to answer the following questions: (a) What requisite knowledge of the content standards must a principal have to effectively evaluate classroom teachers? (b) Would using the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) be an effective evaluation tool and protocol for evaluating classroom teachers, (c) What strategies can be used by a principal to evaluate classroom teachers? and (d) What are the key elements—if any—of an effective professional development program that can assist a principal to effectively evaluate classroom teachers? This study implemented a mixed-methods approach, in which 30 high school principals in Southern California completed a survey, and five of the principals also agreed to take part in a semi-structured interview. Through the process of triangulation, the findings indicate that the principals do not believe they need to be content specialists to effectively evaluate their classroom teachers, that having a basic knowledge of the standards is sufficient. The principals identified that the use of a standards-based teacher evaluation protocol was an effective system because it is aligned with the standards for the teaching profession. The principals identified the most effective strategies for improving teacher performance as increasing the frequency of classroom walk-throughs, providing accurate and timely feedback, and using teacher reflection during post-observation conferences. To improve the cognitive skills of the principals in the area of teacher evaluation, districts need to provide ongoing professional development that is directed toward the evaluation process used by the school district.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The teacher evaluation: key components that positively impact teacher effectiveness and student achievement

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

21st century superintendents: the dynamics related to the decision-making process for the selection of high school principals

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

21st century superintendents: the dynamics related to the decision-making process for the selection of high school principals

PDF

The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development

PDF

Digital teacher evaluations: principal expectations of usefulness and their impact on teaching

PDF

A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement

PDF

The principal's perspective of current tenure practices

PDF

Successful strategies and skills utilized by high school principals as perceived by San Diego County superintendents

PDF

Effective leadership practices of catholic high school principals that support academic success

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Successful strategies and skills utilized by high school principals as perceived by Southern California superintendents

PDF

Model leadership: discovering successful principals' skills, strategies and approaches for student success

PDF

Secondary school counselor-principal relationships: impact on counselor accountability

PDF

Comparative study of the networked principal vs. the isolated principal

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Shifting educator’s paradigm from the practice of implementing standards based learning and assessments to project based learning and assessments for the Common Core State Standards

PDF

Case study: underrepresentation of women in high school principalships and challenges they face in the workplace

Asset Metadata

Creator James, Steven R. (author)

Core Title The leadership skills, knowledge, and training required of high school principals to effectively evaluate classroom teachers

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/19/2014

Defense Date 09/09/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag evaluate,Knowledge,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy Max (committee chair), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member), Roach, John A. (committee member)

Creator Email stevenja@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-479849

Unique identifier UC11286962

Identifier etd-JamesSteve-2961.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-479849 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JamesSteve-2961.pdf

Dmrecord 479849

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights James, Steven R.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA