University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Administrative evaluations and their impact on school leadership in public and private secondary schools: A comparison study of governance structure

(USC Thesis Other)

Administrative evaluations and their impact on school leadership in public and private secondary schools: A comparison study of governance structure

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
ON SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECONDARY SCHOOLS:
A COMPARISON STUDY OF GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
by
John Joseph Smith
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2003
Copyright 2003 John J. Smith
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3133337
Copyright 2003 by
Smith, John Joseph
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3133337
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Los Angeles, California 90089-0031
This dissertation written by
under the discretion of h O Dissertation Committee,
and approved by all members o f the Com m ittee, has
been presented to and accepted by the Faculty o f the
Rossier School of Education in partial fulfillm en t of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
~ l I z z / c z
D;
0 0 7
Dean
Dissertation Commit]
Chairperson
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my best friend and partner Edward Escoto
whose support and understanding has made this journey possible. To my
father Joseph M. Smith and my sister Barbara J. Brewer whose love and
encouragement for me is always apparent. I thank God for their support and
positive influence on my life.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation could not have been possible without the support and
assistance of the following individuals:
To countless family and friends who have believed in and loved me.
To my advisor and committee chair Dr. Guilbert Hentschke, and committee
members Dr. Stuart Gothold and Dr. Carl Cohn.
To the administration of ABC Unified School District.
The Superintendent of Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District, Ms. Ginger
Shattuck.
To the Principal of Valley Christian High School, Kevin Kamingk and the
administration team at Valley Christian High School.
To my colleagues and members of the parallel dissertation group with special
thanks to Matty Zamora - your support and encouragement made it happen.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
ABSTRACT
Chapter
I. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Background of the Problem
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Importance of the Study
Limitations
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders
School Leadership Assessment
School Leadership Development
Religious Education in Schools
Religious Issues in Public Schools
Governance Structure in Parochial Schools
Responsibility of Private Schools Boards
Training Activities and Governing Power
III. METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Sample and Population
Parochial School Governance Structure
Development of Framework for Instrumentation
Instrumentation
Data Collection
Page
ii
iii
vii
viii
1
1
4
9
10
12
13
14
14
20
22
23
26
27
31
34
35
37
37
39
43
45
46
53
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IV. RESULTS OF THE STUDY - THE FINDINGS 56
Introduction 56
Presentation and Analysis of Data 57
Interview Summary with Valley Christian 58
Interview Summary with ABC U.S.D. 62
Questionnaire Rating Scale and Analysis 63
Summary of Research Questions 69
Summary Findings of Questionnaire 80
Valley Christian High School Findings 81
Gahr High School Findings and Comparisons 83
Conclusion of Findings 86
V. Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations 88
Summary of the Study 88
Summary of Methodology and Sample Population 91
Summary Instrumentation 92
Summary of Data Collection 93
Data Analysis Conclusion 95
Conclusion 97
Recommendations 101
Suggested Further Research 104
BIBLIOGRAPHY 106
APPENDIXES
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6a
A-6b
California Professional Standards 115
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium
Standards for School Leaders 118
Annual Report Card - Gahr High School 123
Bellflower Christian Schools - Organizational Chart 126
Leadership Evaluation Practices Survey 128
Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District 141
Proposed Modification of Principal Evaluation Form &
Related Policy Modifications
Research Study Letter to Schools 159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A-7 Bellflower Christian Schools: Description of Duties 162
A-8 ABC Unified School District Evaluation Policy 171
A-9 Valley Christian High School Recommended 176
Administrative Evaluation Procedures
A-10 Research Survey Cover Memo and Information 178
A-11 Valley Christian High School Administrator 183
Image Questionnaire
A-12 ABC Unified School District Self-Reflection Evaluation 186
A-13 ABC Unified School District Administrative Personal 190
Performance Plan
v i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Chart: Leadership Framework
Table 2: Survey Question #1 Results
Leadership Skill Importance in Evaluations
Table 3: Survey Question #2 Results
Leadership Skills in Administrator Evaluations
Table 4: Leadership Framework Question #3 Results
Time Spent on Leadership Standards
Table 5: Survey Question #4 Results
Leadership Standards in Administrator Evaluations
Table 6: Survey Question #5 Results
Effective Evaluations
Table 7: Survey Questions 15-25 Results
Organizational Structure
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the present study was to better understand the link
between governance and practice. This study was a comparison between a
secondary public school and a school operating under a distinct alternative
governance structure. The study compared administrative evaluation
practices and administrators’ perception of the evaluation system. The study
asked participants to review professional standards for educational leaders.
The purpose was to ascertain the influence (if any) that governance structure
had on school leadership evaluation practices. Six research questions were
developed to guide the study: Questions one and three asked; How are
administrative evaluations undertaken in public and private education?
Question two and four asked; What are the principle forces that shape
administrative evaluations in public and private education? Question five
asked; How, if at all, do administrative evaluations practiced in public
education differ from the practices in private educational institutions?
Question six asked; How, if at all, do the forces differ with administrative
evaluations between public and private educational institutions?
Qualitative, descriptive case study research methods were used to
analyze both practice sectors. The study focused on two schools with
varying degrees of socio-economic status and enrollment size.
Data analysis reported that professional standards for educational
leaders have not made an impact on administrators in either schooling
sector.
The major findings of this study indicate: 1) a two-tier system exists in
the public sector for administrators, 2) the overall structure of administrative
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evaluations in the private sector may be more “bureaucratic” than the public
sector, 3) the administrator evaluation system in the parochial school
included a greater number of participants in the process than the public
sector.
The study recommends orientation to professional standards for
successful administrative evaluation systems, and developing an in-service
program to ensure that stakeholders are well informed. Suggestions for
further study include a study on administrator evaluations based on
implementation of leadership standards into the evaluation system, as well
as examining the ways evaluation systems support and transform schools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 1
Overview of the Study
Introduction
The problems and challenges facing our Nation's school site and
district level administrators seem almost insurmountable. Our schools are
faced with reforms that make attempts to change every aspect of education,
from credentialing requirements, to standards associated with accountability
and student achievement testing. Kozol (1991) noted that few reforms "such
as restructuring" have reached schools where they can benefit students.
Waters (1998) has reported that educational reforms have made little
difference in the past. Leaders and evaluators of educational programs,
should critically examine the context, past and present, in which education
takes place to illuminate both the problems and the possibilities for future
change. "Evaluators of educational reform must have a vision for change
and the ability and conviction to act on that vision. Evaluators are inevitably
linked to one of the most crucial of social processes, education, and must
develop a framework that takes seriously issues of power, democracy,
inequality, as well as educational structures and practice, in the difficult
process of reforming American public education" (p. 1). Public schools,
faced with problems of poverty, gangs, violence, underachievement, bloated
bureaucracies, and limited resources, are attempting to make changes in
governance, instruction, and learning (Barr and Bizar, 2001).
School site leaders (and in some cases district leaders and/or
administrators) are responsible for the overall performance of the school site.
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Performance accountability in all areas of education has topped the list of
popular education reforms across the nation, in addition, several educational
reform measures proposed during the last several years focus primarily on
assessing students and teachers (Peterson, 1985; EdSource Online, 2002).
Assessment has become a more popular reform in that "two-thirds of the
states have passed legislation strengthening their teacher evaluation
systems. Almost all states now require the evaluation of teachers, and about
half have required the formal evaluation of principals" (Webb & Norton, 2003,
p. 363). These statistics bring to light the importance of performance
assessment and evaluation systems of school personnel. The
administrator's role in evaluation systems has been pivotal in the
effectiveness of student performance (Williams, 2001). The Joint Committee
on Standards for Educational Evaluation (JCSEE, 1988) reported, "The
fundamental purpose of personnel evaluations or any other education activity
must be to provide effective services to students and society" (p. 8).
Performance evaluation systems are more than a means of internal control
measures for educators; purposeful evaluations must “encourage and guide
educators to serve all students more effectively and to advance the theory
and practice of education" (Stufflebeam, 1988, p. 8).
Modern reforms efforts began when the U.S. Department of
Education's National Commission on Excellence in Education published a
report, A Nation at Risk, in 1983. This document is often cited as the origin
of current reform efforts. A Nation at Risk was a landmark report, which
stated its conclusions in brief but dramatic terms:
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
"If an unfriendly power attempted to impose on America the mediocre
educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed
it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to
ourselves. W e have even squandered the gains in achievement made
in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled
essential support systems that helped make those gains possible. We
have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral
educational disarmament" (p. 5).
In 1986, another landmark report was issued by a task force of the
Carnegie Corporation of New York calling for radical changes in teaching.
The Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession issued its findings in,
A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21s* Century. The publication of A
Nation at Risk (1983) and the Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a
Profession (1986) are examples of two reports pointing to the broad-based
problems in education. These reports have brought into focus the need to
evaluate and provide direction for improving the performance of educational
personnel, including school leaders (Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a
Profession, 1986; Wise & Darling-Hammond, 1985; A Nation at Risk, 1983).
Another important document by the California School Leadership Academy
at WestEd produced the California Professional Standards for Educational
Leaders (CPSEL) (Appendix A-1). These standards were developed to
provide direction for school leaders, and for improving the performance of all
students in the school. The CPSEL standards document is being used to
identify effective administrative evaluations, and when associated with a
professional development plan, it will strengthen leadership skills. Peterson
(1985) states, "A well thought out, coordinated system of administrator
assessment is suggested as a powerful force in improving the quality of
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school and district administrators" (p. 2). Improving student performance has
not been an easy task; educational reforms efforts to improve student
achievement included detailed planning and a well thought-out design. Only
part of the design has been to prove to the community that schools are
making attempts at achievement through assessment and evaluation
systems. Performance evaluation systems are evidence to the community
that quality control is being used in the educational system (Webb & Norton,
2003).
Background of the Problem
Prior to the development of professional standards for educational
leaders, school leadership evaluations had no criterion-defined level that
differentiated between acceptable and unacceptable performance. There
have been charges from the profession that personnel evaluations, as a
whole, repeatedly have been invalid, unfair, superficial, and ineffective
(JCSEE, 1988).
Evaluating whether a school administrator is effective is critical to
ensuring a school's success (Franklin, 2000). Education as a whole is being
held to higher standards of accountability, school districts are looking at
reforming administrative evaluation programs based on professional
standards. These reforms are "important to the internal operation and
effectiveness of the school system and to the public's perception of the
school system" (Webb & Norton, 2003). In addition to providing effective
services to students and the community, administrative evaluations exist,
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
according to MacPhail-Wilcox and Forbes (1990), for three primary reasons
that include, but are not limited to:
1) Accountability - to ensure educational welfare of the students
and the community in establishing school structures, patterns,
and processes that support student learning.
2) Development - helps administrators develop the necessary
skills needed to perform their duties effectively.
3) Personnel Decisions - retention or dismissal, promotions,
personnel decisions should be made thoughtfully and on the
basis of careful documentation.
Developing specific standards for evaluation assessment is crucial to
school success. In schools where effective evaluation procedures are
undertaken, school site and district level leaders may have positive effects on
the leadership practices of school leaders. Johnson (1996) states that
superintendents (and/or district level administrators) can exercise great
influence on school practices by supervising school site leaders well. School
boards, superintendents, or district level administrators who perform
evaluations on school site leaders must give careful consideration about the
kinds of things schools leaders are being evaluated on. This may be critical
since the criteria may institutionalize a set of values and expectations that
may not have been present at the school site prior (Stufflebean, 1988).
Administrator evaluations must measure, identify and develop
leadership strengths and skills (Beck, 1994). Creating effective schools
requires developing and sustaining specific leadership skills that are
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
continually being strengthened and changed to meet the demands of a high
performing school. Although leadership skills have been identified, there is
one general, broad-based problem with school leadership evaluation
processes, which is, administrative evaluations are not being used to identify
and develop leadership strengths and skills (Williams, 2001).
There are challenges that impede school leaders from practicing high-
quality leadership. Williams (2001) in her study of leadership practices and
assessment states, "The need for an evaluation process that identifies
leadership skills arises from both the research based emphasis on school
leaders' role in creating effective schools and the current focus on high
standards and accountability." When leadership standards are followed, and
a plan is developed to strengthen leadership skills, administrators are able to
expand their role as school leader, sharing the responsibility with all
stakeholders who have "multiple perspectives on the improvement of student
learning" (California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders, 2001).
These stakeholders are not limited to their role in the school site or district.
Leadership in education belongs to various groups. Students, teachers,
parents, and school board leaders, along with leaders from community
groups, business and industry, and faith institutions, have an important role
in working together with educators to create and sustain effective schools.
"Cultivation of multiple leadership is particularly important with respect to the
public's expectation that schools will enable the next generation to
accomplish societal goals earlier generations did not reach, to overcome
poverty, discrimination, to build harmony among people of different racial,
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ethnic and religious backgrounds" (Council of Chief State School Officers,
2003). The values needed for greater student achievement will not be
realized unless leadership for schools comes from both the inside and
outside the school. The success of schools is built on school leadership
evaluation processes that are sound and clear. "In order to educate students
effectively and to achieve other related goals, educational institutions must
use evaluation to select, retain, and develop qualified personnel and to
manage and facilitate their work" (Stufflebeam, 1988).
Attempts have been made to define what is a clear and sound
evaluation process. Webb and Norton (2003, p. 363) reported three
characteristics of a sound evaluation system. First, a sound evaluation
system must establish performance evaluation as a school organization
priority. The evaluation system must be important to the educational
organization and must have the commitment of the governing board, council
or committee. Without the support of the governing board, council or
committee and the school leadership (administration), the evaluation system
will be "superficial at best" (Webb and Norton, 2003). Evaluation is much
more than a basic procedure established by a schooling organization.
Williams (2001) reports that evaluation systems are “a function that is
provided time, money, support, and thoughtful reflection” (p. 34). The
evaluation process becomes much more than an exercise.
Second, a sound evaluation system is determined and disseminated
with clearly articulated evaluation purposes. The end goals, or the specific
reason for evaluation must be stated and defined, otherwise the evaluation
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
process becomes "meaningless and contributes little to the accomplishment
of the district's goals" (Webb & Norton, 2003, p. 365). Evaluation purposes
should assist and help determine how well the educational organization is
meeting its goals and objectives. One final consideration for the evaluation
of school leaders is that evaluations should be used to inform stakeholders of
administrator effectiveness (Williams, 2001).
Third, a sound evaluation system adopts an evaluation plan that has a
sound methodology. The evaluation system should contain an orderly
sequence of implementation stages, a planned progression from intended
purposes through actual use.
Literature has been generated from many sources, including business
and industry, when looking into what is considered clear and sound
evaluation systems. These three characteristics of an evaluation
assessment plan are important, yet they are only the beginning stages of
establishing a sound evaluation system. More should be included in the
attempt to identify a clear and sound evaluation system such as giving
administrators the opportunity to development and assess stages of the
evaluation plan.
What is yet to be known about leadership assessment is whether
governance structure within the educational institution impacts the schooling
practice of administrator evaluation systems.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Statement of the Problem
The most consistent findings in school effectiveness research are that
the success of school improvement efforts is dependent upon leadership
(Bloom, 1999). Effective schools have effective principals and effective
teacher leaders (Fullan, 1993). A high-stakes assessment and current trend
in education has led towards establishing a higher level of accountability in
meeting established standards (Williams, 2001; EdSource, 2002).
Williams (2001) in her study of leadership practices and assessment
states, "The need for an evaluation process that identifies leadership skills
arises frorn both the research based emphasis on school leaders' role in
creating effective schools and the current focus on high standards and
accountability."
In understanding what it means to be effective as educational leaders,
school leaders must first understand the issues they face. The broad-based
problems that school leaders face with regards to leadership performance
evaluation systems are:
1. A perception that administrative evaluations, when completed,
become another document that is filed into a personnel folder.
2. Little or no follow-up are done on evaluation outcomes; there is
a failure to provide constructive feedback.
3. A professional development plan to address leadership
strengths and weaknesses are seldom addressed; there is a
failure to recognize and provide assistance in reinforcing
outstanding service.
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. Leadership assessments fail to provide evidence that will
withstand professional and judicial scrutiny.
Educators and institutions that encourage professional development
associated with a strong evaluation system are enabled to provide superior
services to students and maintain their effectiveness and positive self-image
through period’s of instability or change (JCSEE, 1988). The current practice
of school leadership evaluation assessment does not often include a follow-
up, and evaluation outcomes often take a back seat to the Academic
Performance Index (API) scores of the school. The formative evaluation is
often replaced by the overall school academic performance. Additionally,
standards are not a part of most school leadership evaluation assessments;
generally speaking, most evaluation systems are summative instead of
formative.
Lastly, as stated in the overview of the study, what is not known about
leadership assessment is whether governance structure within the
educational institution impacts the schooling practice of administrative
evaluations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to better understand the link between
governance and practice. The present study is a comparison between a
typical secondary public school and one operating under a distinct alternative
governance structure. The governance structure between public and private
schools are very different from each other with regards to the Federal and
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
State requirements schools are held to. The difference in school leadership
evaluation practices varies by virtue of the sector in which the school leader
works.
This study will compare the difference between a public and a private
(alternative) school governance structure, administrative evaluation practices
and administrators' perception of the evaluation system. The purpose is to
ascertain the influence (if any) that governance structure has on school
leadership evaluation practices and examine the options between the two
schooling sectors. The purpose of this study is to examine the differences
between two schooling organizations, and describe the variations in
leadership evaluation practices associated with those differences.
Questions to be Answered
The following research questions were addressed:
1. How are administrative evaluations undertaken in public
education?
2. What are the principle forces that shape administrative
evaluations in public education?
3. How are administrative evaluations undertaken in private
educational institutions?
4. What are the principle forces that shape administrative
evaluations in private educational institutions?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5. How, if at all, do administrative evaluations practiced in public
education differ from the practices in private educational
institutions?
6. How, if at all, do the forces differ with administrative evaluations
between public and private educational institutions?
Importance of the Study
The present study is of importance to many in the field of education.
The overall importance of the study will be to ascertain if school governance
structure has any discernable importance in schooling practices (e.g.,
administrative evaluations). If differences are found between the practice
sectors in the evaluation of school leaders due to the differences in the
governance structures, additional research may be needed to determine
differences in other educational areas. Additionally, if no difference is found
in governance structure, forces shaping leadership evaluations will be limited
to the practice sectors in the study.
For school leaders, this study presents an opportunity to examine
leadership evaluation practices and the principle forces that shape
administrative evaluation practices in either the private and/or public sector.
Furthermore, this study will contribute to a better understanding of
administrative evaluations and interpretation with regards to the support of
recent State leadership standards.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Limitations
The data collection for this study will be conducted over a one to two
month period at one specific private Christian school and in a public school in
a nearby select district. Many respondents may not express their true beliefs
of leadership and evaluations but instead may express those ideas they
believe are more socially and politically acceptable. This study does not
include the opportunity for input from teachers, students or the community.
The sample will consist of school site administrators from a
comprehensive secondary school in the selected district, one - three district
administrators, and district level and school site administrators from a private
parochial school. This small sample limited to secondary schools may not
allow for generalization outside the sample, but may provide a basis for a
broader study across a geographical area of other schools and/or districts.
Findings, recommendations, and conclusions may be applicable only to
school administrative practices at the secondary level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter II
Literature Review
Introduction
School leaders in this day of high-stakes accountability are challenged
from many angles; in fact, there are a wide variety of problems and/or factors
that prevent school leaders from leading. School leaders spend much of
their time being managers. This is not to suggest school leaders should not
exhibit management skills, but educational administrators need to be
competent in many areas. Bennis and Nanus (1985) stated there is a
profound difference between management and leadership. "To manage”
means, “ to bring about, to accomplish, to have charge of or responsibility for,
to conduct, to exert control over." "Leading" is "influencing, guiding in
direction, course, action, opinion, to show the way to by going in advance."
According to Bennis and Nanus, "The difference may be summarized as
activities of vision and judgment-effectiveness versus activities of mastering
routines-efficiency" (p.21). Gardner (1990) distinguished leaders and
leader/managers from the general run of “managers” in the following
respects: “1. Leaders think in longer terms - beyond the day’s crises or the
quarterly report, 2. They put heavy emphasis on the intangibles of vision,
values, and motivation and understanding intuitively the non-rational and
unconscious elements in leader- constituent interaction, 3. They have the
political skill to cope with the conflicting requirements of multiple
constituencies, and 4. They think in terms of renewal” (p. 4).
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School leadership is not easy to define. Attempts to quantify "good
leadership" has not been possible, in spite of the research and literature that
may point to quantified indicators of effective school leaders. Researchers
cannot find a uniform measure for every school leader and every school
(Chemers, 1993). “Scholars haven’t done much better, generating hundreds
of definitions but little consensus” (Lashway, 1999, p. 7). Goldberg (2001)
reported that “predicting who will make an excellent leader is not possible
and that leadership qualities do not include any particular set of generic
characteristics” (p. 1). Given the lack of a definition of leadership, school
leaders must still distinguish between "leadership" and "management." Bizar
and Barr (2001) believe that management functions are undertaken to get
the school's work done. This may consist of doing business in ways that are
known within the school culture and/or the school community, such as
making requests, communicating, disciplining, filing complaints, and making
plans. In essence, "management preserves the status quo." In contrast to
this, Bizar & Barr (2001) defined leadership activities as "activities focused in
revitalizing and reforming certain aspects of school practice." Management
is important in establishing and maintaining school culture when schools are
in need of structure and control (Keedy, 1991; Achilles, Keedy & High, 1999).
Bizar and Barr (2001) stated that "once rules, responsibilities, and agreed-
upon ways of doing business are in place, then administrators are free to
engage in leadership activities to establish a more shared form of
governance". School leaders are responsible for maintaining the crucial
balance between management and leadership; however, leadership is one of
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the most critical components in creating high performing schools (Wendel,
Hoke & Joekel, 1996).
Research on school leadership as done by Sergiovanni (1992, 1996),
Beck (1993, 1994), Darling-Hammond (1997), Larry Lashway (1999), and the
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation [JCSEE] (1988),
points to the changes that are required of school leaders from managerial to
a more transformative style. Leading a school organization is a complex
task; site administrators spend their time performing a variety of fundamental
management practices on a daily basis. Thus, they have little time to be
leaders. School leaders must perform many tasks; they are looked to as
catalysts, experts, managers, and facilitators who ensure that student
achievement is happening. School leaders must know budgeting, schedule
making, supervision, and they must exhibit skills in technology and
instruction. The operant goals and objectives of school leaders are no longer
to maintain the school structure but rather to maintain the holistic
development of the school staff (Beck and Murphy, 1993).
Whatever the "duty, task, or assignment" a school leader may have,
leadership in itself is changing, highly complex, difficult to pin down and
difficult to define. The topic of leadership has been written about more often
than any other subject, yet it "represents one of social science's greatest
disappointments" (Sergiovanni, 1992, p. 2). Bennis and Nanus (1985)
compared leadership to the Abominable Snowman, whose footprints is
everywhere but who is nowhere to be seen. Lashway (1999) states,
“Defining leadership is a lot like trying to dismantle a marshmallow: you can
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
do it, after a fashion, but not very precisely, and not without getting your
hands sticky” (p. 23).
Attempts over the years have been made to clarify basic leadership
theories and styles; these theories and styles have included Sergiovanni's
"reinventing leadership" theories, Odden's (1995) leadership theories, as well
as those by Webb & Norton (2003) and Lewin, Lippitt & White (1939). In
their study on leadership (Lewin et al., 1939) reported three fundamental
leadership styles:
1. Democratic leadership - structured but cooperative approach to
decision making, focused on group relationships and sensitivity
to the organization.
2. Authoritarian leadership - autocratic methods in arriving at
decisions, structured so that authority is vested in the upper
hierarchy of the organization.
3. Laissez-faire leadership - free-rein approach to leadership, little
structure, passive style and few restrictions to the decision
making process.
Odden (1995) discusses various leadership theories that have developed
"over time"; these theories are always based on the type of leaders we have
(Lashway, 1999). Leadership theories reported by Odden (1995) include:
Leadership Traits - fixed traits of the individual, i.e. age, sex,
personality.
Power Approach - authority of the supervisor to the employee,
in some cases the power could be coercive, remunerative,
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
formal and informal.
Behavioral - in this model, effective leaders considered the
needs of the individual and the needs of the organization in the
development of their leadership skills.
Contingency Approach - no one best leadership style,
leadership behavior was dependent on organizational context.
Visionary Leadership - focused on the importance of visions for
effective leadership; does the leader have a vision for the
organization, can he communicate the vision, and can he
empower workers to implement the vision.
Odden’s theories of leadership in the twentieth century have "cut
across nearly all types of organizations, public and private, product producing
or service producing, including schools" (p. 184). Whether the discussion
and analysis is on leadership theories or leadership style, a clear definition of
leadership is required; what works, and why. In respect to popularity,
visionary leadership is currently the more recent leadership style being
discussed today (Odden, 1995). Visionary leadership is a prominent trait of
high-performing administrators (Wendel, Hoke & Joekel, 1996). The U.S.
Department of Education's Principal Selection Guide (1987) states, "Effective
school leaders have broad visions that are clear, active, ambitious, and
performance-oriented." School leaders need to successfully engage
themselves in a leadership role for students to meet achievement standards
and for schools to be successful.
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
There are additional theories regarding school success and the roles
that school leaders should follow to achieve school success. Hentschke and
Davies (1997) discuss the "school-based reengineering" that is necessary for
the "success of school leaders." School leaders must provide to school sites,
a "high degree of autonomy" for school success (p. 34). Additionally, Public
Agenda Online reported in their study Trying to Stay Ahead of the Game:
Superintendents and Principals Talk about School Leadership that one of the
key issues to turning around a troubled school is giving school leaders
authority and autonomy. Williams (2001) in her report on administrator
evaluation systems and effective leadership stated, “ An effective leader
practices servant leadership and is willing to share power and equip other
people to be autonomous and more effective” (p. 40). Sergiovanni (1996)
was clear when he spoke on leadership and the type of leadership needed in
school organizations. He stated, “Leadership for meaning, leadership for
problem solving, collegial leadership, leadership as shared responsibility,
leadership that serves school purposes, leadership that is tough enough to
encourage the heart - these are the images of leadership we need for
schools as communities” (Sergiovanni, 1996, p. 185).
Whatever the educational theories on leadership might be, changing
expectations in education have created new directions for students, teachers
and school leaders. Changes for students, for example, have come with the
implementation of standards and accountability such as those found in the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Changes and new
expectations for teachers and school leaders have come with the publication
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of the academic performance index (API) scores that drives teacher and
administrative performance. To keep pace with teachers and school
leadership reforms, leadership theories have continued to change based on
the views of school leaders and the workers within school organizations.
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders
Recent changes for school leaders have been in the development of
professional standards for school leaders. The Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) issued Standards for School Leaders in
November, 1996 (See Appendix A-2). These standards were developed with
the understanding that formal leadership in schools and school districts is
"complex and multi-faceted" as reported in Standards for School Leaders
(1996). The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium was
established in 1994, under the guidance of the Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO). The ISLLC is a consortium of thirty-two educational
agencies and thirteen education administrative associations that have
worked cooperatively to establish an education policy framework for school
leadership. The Consortium's vision of leadership is based on the premise
that the criteria and standards for the professional practice of school leaders
must be grounded in the knowledge and understanding of teaching and
learning. The purpose of the ISLLC Consortium is to provide a means
through which states can work together to develop and implement model
standards, assessments, professional development, and licensing
procedures for school leaders. The overarching goals of ISLLC are to raise
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the bar for school leaders to enter and remain in the profession, and to
reshape concepts of educational leadership.
Two primary reasons existed for developing leadership standards:
(1) The work on standards in other areas of educational reform had
lead to developing leadership standards.
(2) There seemed to be a major "void" in the area of school
leadership that warranted the need for professional standards
for school leaders.
Along with the development of leadership standards, have come
specific goals, as identified by the ISLLC in developing leadership standards.
The ISLLC standards were adopted by the Consortium in 1996 and are in
use throughout the country. Currently, thirty-five states have either adopted
or adapted the ISLLC Standards and are in different stages of implementing
the Standards in reforming educational leadership within their state
(Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium, 1996).
Two primary goals as they relate to leadership standards are:
1. To raise awareness about quality education administration.
2. To provide materials to enhance the quality of education
administration.
The development of standards and the leadership goals that followed
have helped to give school leaders direction and focus on what are perceived
by school leadership organizations to be the framework for effective
leadership. Effective leadership empowers an organization to maximize its
contribution to the well being of its members and to the larger society of
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
which it is a part. One reason why school leaders have been ineffective in
managing organizations is because there has been a lack of professional
leadership standards in which they could model.
School Leadership Assessment
Most administrative evaluation systems are not adequate in identifying
leadership strengths and weaknesses. There are different types of
evaluations processes such as summative and formative evaluations, and
norm-referenced and criterion referenced evaluations. A formative
evaluation, according to Webb & Norton (2003) is an evaluation conducted
while a creative process is under way, designed and used to promote growth
and improvement in a person's performance or in a program's development.
A formative evaluation is an ongoing evaluation designed to provide
continuous feedback. Summative evaluations (Webb & Norton, 2003) are
"conducted at the end of an activity or period of time and is designed to
assess terminal behaviors or overall performance. A summative evaluation
is formal and somewhat infrequent and focuses only on the person being
evaluated". This type of evaluation seldom provides for self-reflection and
professional growth. School leadership evaluations are usually summative in
nature. According to the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational
Evaluation (1988; p.6), "Summative evaluations fail to provide constructive
feedback, fail to provide direction for staff development, and fail to unify
teachers and administrators in their collective efforts to educate students."
Summative evaluations are designed to present conclusions about the merit
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
or worth of a person's performance. Summative evaluations oftentimes
become an "artifact in a personnel file rather than an avenue to professional
growth" (Williams, 2001). Without a plan to identify strengths and
weaknesses of school leaders, school leaders fail to create a support system
to help teachers meet their professional standards and to help students meet
their academic content standards. A norm-referenced evaluation is a
comparison evaluation; it compares individual performance with the
performance of others in a group. Criterion-referenced evaluations compare
individual performance to an established standard. This method (criterion-
referenced) of evaluation is being used more often today as a result of the
standards movement that have been established for students, teachers and
now educational leaders.
School Leadership Development
In April 2001, a draft of the California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders (CPSEL) was distributed. The CPSEL standards were
adopted from the ISLLC standards. The CPSEL standards were established
to ensure that there were "high-quality" administrators being prepared in
California. Like content standards for students and professional standards
for teachers, the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders
(CPSELs) lay out the field of work for California school leaders in a thorough
and balanced way. These standards and practices provide a common
language for engaging in important discussions about quality administrators:
what it takes to prepare them, induct them into the profession, support them
in their continuing development, and recognize them as highly accomplished
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
professionals. The standards take the individual needs into account in
informing the guiding administrators as they progress from aspiring
administrators to accomplished administrators. The leadership frameworks
of the ISLLC and CPSEL standards are similar and may be future options for
leadership evaluation systems. The CPSEL standards established by the
ISLLC and adopted in California for the CPSEL begin with the following
preamble: “The administrator at a school site has numerous responsibilities
that ultimately lead to the improvement of the performance of all students in
the school. By acquiring the skills, attitudes and behaviors as outlined in the
following professional standards for educational leaders, students have the
best opportunity to achieve the mission and vision of the district and to meet
the expectations of high standards for student learning. Inherent in these
standards is a strong commitment to cultural diversity and the use of
technology as a powerful tool” (CPSEL, 2001). Additionally, each standard
begins with the phrase, “ A school administrator is an educational leader who
promotes the success of all students by...” (CPSEL, 2001) and then each is
followed by the standards. The standards are:
• Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and
stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the
school community.
• Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and
instructional program conducive to student learning and staff
professional growth.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Ensuring management of the organization, operation, and resources
for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
• Collaborating with families and community members, responding to
diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community
resources.
• Modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional
leadership capacity.
• Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political,
social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation
(JCSEE, 1998) reported guiding assumptions as they relate to best practices
in personnel evaluations:
(1) Evaluations must be designed and conducted to encourage
and guide educators to serve all students and to advance the
theory and practice of education.
(2) Evaluations should be free of unnecessary threatening or
demoralizing characteristics. Individuals should experience
clear communications and fair treatment.
(3) Evaluations are vital for planning sound professional
development. Evaluations should point the way to new learning
that is directly related to their needs, interests, and
responsibilities.
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(4) Disagreements are warranted when it comes to what
constitutes good teaching, good leadership (administration),
and good research. Job descriptions and educational
approaches vary because of different philosophies of
education. Depending upon the circumstances, a variety of
approaches may be more or less effective in different
situations. Definition of goals and roles must be defined
individually.
(5) Access to evaluation reports should be limited. Context in
which the evaluate works should be identified, described, and
recorded, so that environmental influences and constraints on
performance can be considered in the evaluation.
Whether best practices of the JCSEE in evaluation systems or
standards established by the ISLLC and/or the CPSEL, very few school
organizations have developed clear and sound leadership evaluation
assessment systems. Few organizations have yet to implement current
leadership standards into their system of assessment; however, schools are
making attempts at reforming educational leadership evaluation plans
(Williams, 2001).
Religious Education in Schools
The literature available on religious education and in particular
religious or parochial schools is varied. Literature in the form of books,
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
religious journals, dissertations, and church publications has multiplied in
recent years. The revitalization of religious schools (and colleges) has
multiplied books and essays on the subject of religious education.
"Conferences, think tanks, and scholars were encouraged and sustained by
sponsoring colleges, religious judicatory, and charitable foundations (to write
and publish). Recent articles, essays, and such range from a conservative
discussion to an extreme, "right wing" view that public schools have failed in
every aspect from student learning to the boards that govern them (Wilson,
2003).
Compulsory education laws in the United States have created conflict
and continue to be the subject of controversy for many who believe the public
school system has failed in teaching what God expects children to learn
(Fitzpatrick, 2002). The communities, specifically parents, are generally
concerned about school violence, drugs, and lack of character education in
public schools. These are reasons they choose private schools over local
public schools. "Consequently, many parents in the U.S. are removing their
children from public schools and enrolling them in private schools whose
primary mission is teaching a "Christian" lifestyle during the impressionable
growing-up years" (Fitzpatrick, 2002, p. 2).
Religious Issues in Public Schools
This study of governance structure includes aspects of a private
Christian school. For this reason it is important to discuss the compliance
issues related to the separation of church and state, which must be enforced
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in public schools. Not endorsing or appearing to endorse religion is
especially important in the public schools due to a number of considerations
unique to the public schools in the United States: the unique sensitivity of
school-age children, the fact that public schools are public institutions, and
the profound influence of school officials and teachers over students (ADL,
2001). The anti-defamation league (ADL), a political organization whose
purpose they state is “ to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if
necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its
ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike
and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and
ridicule of any sect or body of citizens” (ADL Charter, 1913). In the ADL
document Religion in the Public Schools: Guidelines for a Growing and
Changing Phenomenon, it’s reported that our Nation's founders recognized
the importance of separation of church and state by writing this into the
United States Constitution under three clauses. Together these three
clauses embody and ensure what Thomas Jefferson called the "separation of
church and state":
1) Religious Test Clause: "[N] o religious Test shall ever be required as
a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3.
2) Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting as
establishment of religion..." U.S. Constitution, Amendment I.
3) Free Exercise Clause: "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the
free exercise thereof." U.S. Constitution, Amendment I.
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
It is believed that all Americans should be free to practice their religion
without state interference. Over the years, several court decisions in the
United States have limited religious instruction in public and/or government
schools. A sampling of court decisions include the following:
1948 - Religious instruction in public schools: Unconstitutional
(McCollum v. Board of Education)
1962 - School Prayer: Unconstitutional (Engel v. Vitale)
1963 - Bible reading over public school intercom: Unconstitutional
(Abington School District v. Schempp)
1980 - Posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools:
Unconstitutional (Stone v. Graham)
1985 - Moments of silence in public schools: Unconstitutional (Wallace
v. Jaffree)
1987 - Laws requiring equal treatment of creationism has a religious
purpose: Unconstitutional (Edwards v. Aguillard)
1992 - Prayer at public school graduation ceremony: Unconstitutional
(Lee v. Weisman)
2000 - Student-led prayers at public school football games:
Unconstitutional (Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe)
Religious teachings and/or Christian education in school settings have
developed and changed over the past few decades. Most religious schools
have become more religiously diverse in the composition of their faculties,
staffs, and student bodies, and more secular in character and content
(Dovre, 2002). Schuller (1993) states that Christian education takes place
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
today in a world that is very different from the world in which many of the
structures for Christian education were developed. Among the most
significant changes is that our society is not a Protestant Christian society,
but a diverse, pluralistic society with many different religions. Many religions
place importance on education; one of the "motivations that led to the
founding of colleges in colonial America were to educate clergy" (Zikmund,
1993). Religions today include, but are not limited to; Christian, Jewish,
Muslim or Islamic, Zoroastrian, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jain, Shinto, Sikh, and
Taoist or Daoist. Most religious sects have developed theological seminaries
to educate their own. Christian education is no different from most other
religions; in 1808 the New England Congregationalists founded their first
theological seminary. According to Schuller (1993) Andover Theological
Seminary's stated purpose was to increase the number of clergy. Schuller
(1993) reported that according to American religious historian William Warren
Sweet, theological seminaries were needed because the supply of clergy
was being curtailed and education in the old colonial colleges could not meet
the need for clergy in the new nation "alongside the trend towards state-
controlled education". Seminaries in early America wanted to make the point
that the training of ministers was too important to be left to informal or
haphazard means. For many Americans, "Christian" education in the private
sector is fulfilling the mission that public education has failed to do (Schuller,
1993). Supporters of Christian education believe that the government school
system has failed (Wilson, 2003). Those who argue that the public system
has failed would support reinstitution of prayer in schools or the elimination of
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
offensive textbooks, or other similar issues that would bring the public system
to the more traditional center. The argument regarding the failure of the
public school system is the reason that we see the charter school movement,
or the call for vouchers (Wilson, 2003). However, supporters of Christian
education would not be in favor of vouchers for their private Christian schools
believing that government will begin to influence their religious institutions.
Christian educators have no desire to bring government into the private
educational sector. Christian education supporters would see this as
contributing factors to the failure of Christian education (Fitzpatrick, 2002).
Governance Structure in Parochial Schools
Joan Fitzpatrick (2002) reported in her dissertation on "Why Christian
Schools Close: A Model” that crossover is seen between leadership in
secular and Christian educational organizations. Many leaders in Christian
schools, however, believe they have a "higher calling" and a specific Biblical
requirement to the students they serve with "eternal ramifications".
Fitzpatrick is open in sharing that her study of the literature revealed, "90% of
the time the board of directors (leadership) is at the core of the (school)
problems" (p. 25). The review of the literature revealed that the role of a
school board is to set the policy and the role of administration is to implement
these policies. The problem lies with the anecdotal evidence that indicates
that a board that attempts to run the day-to-day operation of the school will
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
most likely "have a negative effect on the institution" (Fitzpatrick, 2002).
Douglas Wilson (2003), in his text The Case for Classical Christian
Education, believes that many Christian schools have failed in their overall
religious mission. The failure of Christian schools has happened because
the school boards that run the schools have lost their vision; subsequently, a
lack of, or loss of vision may contribute to the failure of Christian education.
Edlin (1999) stated, "Schools that started with good intentions yet lost their
vision and integrity do so because they did not convey their vision to the
people." One of the most common problems outlined by Wilson (2003) is
that with "board-run schools, the assumption made by strong-willed board
members will constitute in their own person the full authority of the board" (p.
21). Often times, the board begins to dictate the control of the school by the
decisions the board makes, often disregarding the vision of the church or the
religion they are associated with. Governance structure begins to change
based on the school boards decisions to "operate" the school in a specific
manner; therefore, the church (or religion) no longer dictates the direction of
the school (Lawson & Choun, Jr, 1992). Many times, the church does
influence the governance structure of its schools. The mission and purpose
of the church and school are not synonymous. Warren (1995) identifies five
major purposes of the Christian church: outreach, worship, fellowship,
discipleship, and service. The school's primary purpose is educating
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students, however, the school may oftentimes contain elements of the
church's purpose. However, the work cultures that exist within the school
and church setting are much different from each other. The mostly volunteer
church or religious sect operates within a unique set of expectations, such as
visiting sick, elderly, and spreading the "religious" message. In actuality, the
school system operates under separate expectations of the church; these
expectations are that the school will deliver educational services.
There are several descriptions of the structural characteristics of local
Christian school educational governance groups. In most cases these
groups are boards. Occasionally, the groups may be known as
commissions, councils or committees (Convey & Haney, 1997). According to
the National Association of Board of Catholic Education (1997), most local
school governance bodies are called boards, rather than commissions,
councils or committees. Most governance groups in secondary schools are
boards (93 percent); only three percent are commissions and five percent are
other groups, such as advisory councils. Establishing board authority is
based on the "church" group and their established constitution and by-laws (if
they exist.) Newly organized churches may oftentimes take years before the
church establishes a constitution, by-laws, or other structured documents.
Many small churches never make it to the point of creating such structure
(Wilson, 2003). However, in most private religious schools, the constitution
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and by-laws of all boards (92 percent) are approved by the religious
congregation that sponsors the school (Convey & Haney, 1997).
Responsibility of Private School Boards
Many private secondary school boards are likely to perceive they are
accountable to religious communities and school owners rather than to the
Superintendent, religious leaders (such as Pastors), and the school
administration (National Catholic Educational Association, 2002). Private
secondary boards are more involved in specific achievements than other
governance structures such as committees or councils. These achievements
include:
• development
• enrollment issues
• selection and evaluation of the administrator
• curriculum
• legal matters.
Decision-making is arrived through consensus in most schools;
parochial schools employ voting as a means to making decisions similar to
boards in secular school districts (Convey & Haney, 1997). It is important to
note that private religious schools have no uniform measure for conducting
their governing structure. Methods used to govern are dependent of the
religious sect. Many religious educational organizations use clergy, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
church, or "the religious body" to authorize actions of the board, committee,
or council.
Training Activities and Governing Power
According to a national survey conducted by the National Association
of Boards of Catholic Education (1994), training activities of local board
members are more likely to occur in boards associated with elementary
schools than in boards associated with secondary schools. Approximately
75 percent of boards in elementary schools and slightly more than 40 percent
of boards in secondary schools reported they receive some periodic training.
All boards are more likely according to the survey, to provide training to new
members than they are to provide periodic training to the entire board.
Training for 90 percent of secondary school boards covers issues involving
board roles and responsibilities. The training for less than one-half of the
boards, however, deals with relationships with other groups with which the
board interacts. Clarification of policy-making versus administration is more
of an issue with religious schools than with private secular school boards.
School Boards, both public and private, share a common responsibility
and have similar achievements to the students, the parents and the
community as a whole. For religious educational organizations, the
Governing Board has a responsibility to the religious order, clergy, or the
church. Duties and/or reserved powers pertaining to the governing board
may often be either narrow or broad in scope. The following examples of
duties of governing boards, committees or councils of private Christian
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Schools are not much different from the duties of public education school
boards. Sample duties of private school boards may include:
1. Articulate a Mission Statement/propose changes in school
philosophy.
2. Set the educational policies of the school.
3. Appoint the Chief School Administrator/Chief Executive Officer.
4. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Board's policy decisions in
achieving the objectives of the school.
5. Seek general advice of the Church on all matters respecting the
establishment and free exercise of the school with particular
reference to the teaching and promotion of the faith.
One area that governing bodies have in their oversight of school
organizations is evaluation/assessment. Governing bodies must perform
evaluation and/or assessment of the board, committee, or council and
evaluation and/or assessment of the administrator's service to the board
(Convey & Haney, 1997).
The difference with religious educational organizations is that
administrators are evaluated on areas pertaining to their faith, and/or
compliance with religious or church guidelines or doctrine. This is not the
case in the public sector. Administrators may be evaluated on their ethical
behavior but evaluation is not be predicated upon lawful, non-school-related
personal activities.
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter III
Methodology
Introduction
This chapter describes the methodology used in the study, including
the purpose of the study design, sample and population selection,
development of the instrumentation, and the data collection timeline.
The purpose of this study is to better understand the difference
between educational governance structure and schooling practice. The
study is a comparison between a typical secondary public school and one
operating under a distinct alternative governance structure. The governance
structures between public and private schools are very different from each
other with regard to the Federal and State requirements schools are held to.
The difference in school leadership evaluation practices varies by virtue of
the sector in which the school leader works.
This study will compare the difference between a public and a private
(alternative) school governance structure, administrative evaluation practices
and administrators' perception of the evaluation system. The purpose is to
ascertain the influence (if any) that governance structure has on school
leadership evaluation practices and examine the options between the two
schooling sectors. This study will examine the differences between two
schooling organizations, and describe the variations in leadership evaluation
practices associated with those differences.
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The following research questions were addressed through the
collection and analysis of data from one public secondary school and one
private parochial secondary school:
1. How are administrative evaluations undertaken in public
education?
2. What are the principle forces that shape administrative
evaluations in public education?
3. How are administrative evaluations undertaken in private
educational institutions?
4. What are the principle forces that shape administrative
evaluations in private educational institutions?
5. How, if at all, do administrative evaluations practiced in public
education differ from the practices in private educational
institutions?
6. How, if at all, do the forces differ with administrative evaluations
between public and private educational institutions?
This is a comparative case study using qualitative, descriptive
research methods in its examination and comparison of two schools with
varying degrees of socio-economic status and enrollment sizes. The two
schools examined have similar populations and are in two different practice
sectors. This study is designed to identify the possible influence of school
governance structures on school leadership evaluations within the two
practice sectors.
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The public school selected for this study was Gahr High School (in
Cerritos), which is one of three comprehensive high schools located in the
ABC Unified School District. The private school is Valley Christian High
School (in Cerritos), and it is located a few hundred feet from Gahr. The two
participating schools are located in southeast Los Angeles County.
School site administrators were interviewed and given a survey and a
short-sentence written questionnaire for data collection. The instruments for
this study were created solely for this study (with the exception of
modifications made to the Williams (2001) Effective School Leadership
instrument. Multiple methods of data collection were used to examine the
practice - face-to-face interviews, written surveys, and review of evaluation
practices. Instruments used for data collection were used to help draw
conclusions on the established research questions as they relate to two
separate practice settings, a typical public school and a private school.
Sample and Population
This study was the focus of two school settings, Gahr High School and
Valley Christian High School. Each school is WASC (Western Association of
Schools and Colleges) Accredited. This section describes the broad make
up of each school in its respective schooling sector.
The first is a single comprehensive secondary public school called
Gahr High School located in a unified (K-12) district called ABC Unified
School District. The district was first formed in 1965 between Artesia,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bloomfield, and Carmenita School Districts that unified and became known
as ABC Unified School District.
The ABC Unified School District is representative of a small urban
school district throughout the United States. The community served by ABC
Unified School District includes the cities of Artesia, Cerritos, Hawaiian
Gardens, as well as portions of Lakewood, Long Beach, and Norwalk. ABC
Unified School District is located in a suburb on the southeast edge of Los
Angeles County. The district is ethnically and economically diverse within
the nineteen elementary schools, five middle schools, three comprehensive
high schools, a college prep 7-12 school, and an alternative (continuation)
high school.
Gahr High School is representative of an average secondary school.
Gahr High School serves over 1800 culturally and ethnically diverse students
in grades nine through twelve on a traditional calendar system of two
semesters. Classes meet five times per week; students receive between 55
and 57 minutes on regular days, and between 50 and 52 minutes on
modified days of specialized instruction in each subject area by appropriately
credentialed teachers (Annual School Report Card - Gahr High School, April
2002)(Appendix A-3). Leadership at Gahr High is a responsibility shared
between district administration, the principal, instructional staff, students, and
parents. Staff members and parents participate on various committees that
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
make decisions regarding the priorities and direction of the educational plan
to ensure instructional programs are consistent with students’ needs and
comply with district goals. The School Site Council, consisting of school staff
and parents, is a major governing body that meets regularly to address
programs and components that make up the school. They discuss the
effectiveness and appropriateness of the various programs and components
relative to goals of the school, and act as a communication liaison between
the community and the school. Other committees include the English
Language Advisory Committee and the Focus on Learning Committee.
A constructive evaluation process has been established to promote
quality instruction, and it is a fundamental element in a sound educational
program. Evaluations and formal observations are designed to encourage
common goals and to comply with the state’s evaluation criteria and district
policies. Evaluations are conducted by administrators that have been trained
and certified for competency to perform evaluations; at the high school level,
the principal, assistant principal, or qualified guidance coordinators perform
evaluations. Professional development opportunities are available to staff
annually.
The demographic make-up of the school is diverse, Hispanic students
are the highest percentage of students at 32.1% followed by Asian students
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(non-Filipino) at 24.0%, Caucasian students represent 19.0% of the
approximate 1800 students at the school site.
The second school selected for this study is Valley Christian High
School, a private, non-profit organization known as “Bellflower Christian
Schools, Inc.” Valley Christian High School is a culturally and ethnically
diverse, coeducational Christian school located in the suburbs of Los
Angeles. The area that it serves is undergoing an ethnic change. In the
1960’s, it was largely an area of Dutch dairies, and now the community is
ethnically diverse. The school system (K-12) was founded in 1935 by
parents from Calvinistic churches and is now operated by a society of
parents and interested parties drawn from churches adhering to Reformed
theology.
Valley Christian High School is one of many schools in the Bellflower
Christian Schools network of schools. The school year is divided into two
semesters. All courses meet five times per week. Progress grades are
given three times per semester; permanent semester grades are given at the
end of each semester following semester exams. One of the graduation
requirements is for each student to perform a least twenty hours of
documented community service per year. Administrative staff has graduated
from accredited colleges and universities. Students from Christian homes,
whose parents profess faith in Christ and are active members of an
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evangelical church, are eligible for enrollment. Approximately 52% of the
students attend one of 12 supporting churches from the Christian Reformed,
Reformed and Orthodox Presbyterian denominations. The student body of
Valley Christian High School represents over 237 various churches.
The remaining 48% attend approximately 225 churches from various
Protestant denominations. Admission is based upon a written application, an
interview with the building principal and the admissions committee, and the
recommendation of the pastor of the applicant’s church. Valley Christian
High School (VCHS) is accredited by the Western Association of Schools
and Colleges and is a member of the CIF’s Olympic League. The students
are predominately Caucasian (approximately 78%), with the remainder being
evenly divided between African-American, Asian, and Hispanic, and Other.
Students come from a geographical radius of approximately 25 miles. The
High School student body is composed of approximately 720 students quite
evenly divided between male and female.
Parochial School Governance Structure
The governing structure at Valley Christian High School is a Board of
Directors, consisting of 12 members (Appendix A-4). Each member is
elected to a four-year term, with three members each year up for election or
re-election. Perspective board members are obtained through
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
recommendations from 12 supporting churches in the Calvinistic church
system. Pastors and the Elders of each church are voting members as well
as the members of the School Society, (parents in the school system are
members of the School Society.) Once elected to the School Board of
Directors, the board members are asked to serve on two different
committees - Education, Admissions, Executive, Marketing and Promotion,
Bus and Property, Finance, and Long Range Planning. Board members
meet once a month and committees meet once a month. Other committee
members consist of Elementary, Middle School and High School Principals,
and at large members from the school community. Most committees have an
average of 6-8 members whose duties are to make recommendations to the
Board of Directors. Selection for all positions comes from the supporting
churches. The Superintendent is a member of the Property and Bus
Committee, the Education Committee and the Long Range Planning
Committee. The secondary school principal is a member of the Education
Committee and the Promotion Committee.
The Executive Committee is responsible for the selection and
recommendation for appointment of the Superintendent and school
Principals. This committee is also responsible for supervision and
performance evaluation of the Superintendent, school principals, and the
Director of Business Operations.
The two schools used in this study were selected on the basis of their
location and proximity to each other; the distance between each school is
about two blocks apart.
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Two district leaders were part of this study: the Director of Secondary
Schools and the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Development.
The site administrators participating in this study, at the public high school,
consist of a principal, assistant principal, and a guidance counselor who
served as a secondary assistant principal for four years at a different high
school in a neighboring Unified (K-12) district. All participants in the public
sector have been in the district for a minimum of three years. The private
secondary Christian high school has three site administrators who completed
the written survey. The face-to-face interviews will ask a series of questions
pertaining to organizational and/or governance structure of administrator
evaluation systems.
Development of Framework for Instrumentation
The development of the instrumentation framework began with a
comparison of the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders
(CPSEL) and the Interstate Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC)
Standards for School Leaders. A table was developed to compare the
standards listed in each document. The leadership frameworks of the ISLLC
and CPSEL standards are similar and may be options for future leadership
evaluation systems research. Instrumentation framework was adopted in
part, from the Williams (2001) Effective School Leadership study. The
professional standards framework is important due to the fact that standards
overall have played a major role in education reform, with professional
standards being equally important to school success. Curriculum standards
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
have become mandated for public schools, and private schools are reviewing
the use of standards as a measure of accountability. Professional standards
for educational leaders have yet to be mandated; instituting professional
standards at either the public or private sector has been “disappointing.”
Table 1 outlines the similarities between the ISLLC and the CPSEL
standards documents for educational leaders.
Table 1
Chart: Leadership Framework
Interstate School Leaders Licensure California Professional Standards for
Consortium (ISLLC) Educational Leaders
Standards for School Leaders (Developed- Draft 2001)
1. Shared Vision of Learning 1. Shared Vision of Learning
2. Culture and Instruction 2. Culture and Instruction
3. Management 3 Management
4. Collaboration with Stakeholders 4. Collaboration with Stakeholders
and Networking
5. Ethics and Integrity 5. Personal Code of Ethics and
Professional Development
6. Political/Social/Economics 6. Political and Organizational
(Team Building)
Instrumentation
The primary instrument selected for assessing school leadership
evaluation systems will be qualitative in the form of structured face-to-face
interviews, as well as quantitative data collection in the form of a survey and
questionnaire (Appendix A-5). Instruments were created for this study as
well as instruments that were modified from the Williams (2001) Effective
School Leadership study. The surveys from the Williams (2001) study
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
included a five point ordinal scale to determine the administrator’s perception
of leadership skills and to assess how often identifiable leadership skills
occur in the evaluation process. Questions were used from a questionnaire
handout developed by A.P. Raia (2000) Organization Effectiveness Review.
The questionnaire was pilot tested in January 2003 in the Norwalk-La Mirada
Unified School District, a neighboring district to ABC Unified School District
and Valley Christian High School. Reliability and validity of the research
questionnaire was pre-tested with school administrators from the public
school district. The survey test group consisted of district level and
secondary school site administrators prior to its distribution to the sample
population. The pilot instruments were given to the Superintendent of
Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District, Ms. Ginger Shattuck, who
distributed the instrumentation to administrators in the district. Norwalk-La
Mirada U.S.D. administrators, under the direction of the Superintendent,
were given the opportunity to provide written feedback. Their feedback was
used to clarify the survey and questionnaire. The survey instruments were
"pilot" tested during the first week of January 2003. "Pilot testing" the survey
was necessary in order to obtain the required responses that will allow for
accurate conclusions. In addition to their participation in pilot testing the
survey, Norwalk-La Mirada U.S.D. is in the process of making reforms to
their administrative evaluation system. The district’s draft document called,
“Proposed Modification of Principal Evaluation Form and Related Policy
Modifications” (Appendix A-6a) include the six California Professional
Standards for Educational Leaders.
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The questionnaire for this study was used to elicit data from
administrators on leadership skills they believe to be important, leadership
skills that occur in the evaluation process and the general evaluation
practice. The questionnaire was used to elicit principle forces that make-up
the evaluation process in each of the two governance sectors. School site
and district level administrators made up the interview group for the public
sector. Mostly site administrators made up the interview group from the
private sector; however, one district administrator (the Superintendent) from
the private sector was used in the survey group. Due to the small staff size
of the private sector’s district level personnel, the public sector was equalized
using only one district level administrator. It is important to use the district
level staff because of their role in evaluating secondary principals at the
school site. Each group participated in the questionnaire/survey. Question
#1 and #2 focused on leadership skills for effective school administration
(leadership), question #3 and #4 was used as a ranking method, focusing on
the leadership frameworks outlined by the Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) and the California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders (CPSEL). Question #5 also uses a ranking method to
identify district evaluation policy. Nine general open-ended questions
(questions 6-14) required written responses pertaining to general leadership
skills, standards and evaluation policy at the specific school site; questions 6-
14 are a more qualitative section of the survey. A series of questions
(questions 15-25) are designed to elicit information on survey participants
views of the organizations overall effectiveness and governance structure. A
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
comments page provided survey participants feedback opportunities in three
broad-based general categories: California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders, Leadership Standards and the Evaluation Process, and
District Level Structure of Administrative Evaluations. The third section of the
survey in this study consists of 15 questions developed to gather information
on school governance structure and administrator evaluation systems. The
open-ended questions and the questions that were identified for use during
the interviews were established, and in most cases, re-written to address the
six research questions for this study; they are:
• Is your leadership evaluation assessment formative or
summative? (Relates to research question #1 & 3)
• Is there a follow-up plan to your evaluation assessment that
provides a well-developed plan to strengthen your leadership
skills? (Relates to research question #1 & 3)
• What elements of your leadership evaluation process do you
feel are effective? (Relates to research question # 2 & 4)
• In what ways could your leadership evaluation be improved?
(Relates to research question #1 & 3)
• What are some concerns or possible pitfalls of leadership
evaluation processes? (Relates to research question #2 & 4)
• Do you feel your current organizational structure works and is
both appropriate and effective; workloads and responsibilities
are equitably distributed? Why or why not? (Relates to
research question # 2 & 4)
• Do you feel it is beneficial to develop an evaluation process
around a leadership framework such as the one suggested by
the ISLLC or CPSEL? (Relates to research question # 1 & 3)
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Do you feel that an evaluation process, which concentrates on
leadership qualities, is more effective than one that focuses on
managerial duties? Why or why not? (Relates to research
question # 1 & 3)
• Do you feel problems are generally identified and solutions
developed at the appropriate level in the organization and by
the appropriate people? Why or why not? (Relates to research
question # 2 & 4)
The following 15 questions were short response written questions. A
delay in Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval caused a delay in the
structured interviews of the secondary principals. The public secondary
principal found it difficult to meet district and state testing mandates and find
time to complete the survey process for this research project. These
questions were eliminated from the questionnaire and asked during the
interview of the parochial school principal and the public school principal
during the face-to-face meeting.
Short response written questions were tied to the research questions
and included the following:
• In general, what is the process for administrator evaluations?
(Relates to research question # 2 & 4)
• What are the principle forces that help to shape administrative
evaluations? (Relates to research question # 1 & 3)
• Is there any area of administrator evaluations that need to be
restructured? (Relates to research question #1 & 3)
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Does the governance structure of the school factor into
evaluation of school leaders/or district leaders? (Relates to
research question #2 & 4)
• Who do you think are the policy makers when it comes to
identifying administrator evaluation outcomes? (Relates to
research question # 2 & 4)
• Question for private school leaders (administrators): Are public
school leaders held to a more stringent criterion in the
evaluation process because of the governance structure? (i.e.,
State standards, the API index). (Relates to research question
# 4 )
• Question for public school leaders: Are private school leaders
held to a more stringent criterion in the evaluation process
because of their governance structure? (i.e., for religious
schools, their affiliation with the church or other religious
organization?). (Relates to research question #2)
• What are the biggest issues you and your administrative staff
face with regards to administrator evaluations? What would
your counterpart say in the other practice sector? (Relates to
research question # 1 & 3)
• Are you familiar with California Professional Standards for
School Leaders? (Please circle one and respond)
If YES - Are they incorporated into administrator evaluations?
If NO - Why are they not being used?
(Relates to research question # 1 & 3)
• What criterion is used to hold school administrators
accountable?
Who is responsible for the development of the criteria?
(Relates to research question # 2 & 4)
• The “ governance structure” is that structure which mandates
who or what should be carried out or performed. Who do you
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
believe is influencing the process of governance in your
practice sector? (Relates to research question # 2 & 4)
• What is going well in the area of administrator evaluations in
(public) (private) schools? (What are the elements of things that
are going well)? (Relates to research question # 1 & 3)
• Question for private religious school leaders (administrators):
What are the religious aspects of your profession that must be
considered? Is it unique to this practice sector? (Relates to
research question # 4)
• Why do you believe school administrators are evaluated?
Accountability or professional development may be the first
thing that comes to mind, but is there a greater purpose? What
are they? (Relates to research question # 2 & 4)
• Does the governance structure need to make a directional
change in how it undertakes administrator evaluations? How
so? (Relates to research question # 2 & 4)
In order to differentiate between school site and district level
participants in this study, and to provide anonymity to research participants,
survey identification guidelines were established. Surveys for (1) Gahr High
School were identified as Survey Group #1A, (2) ABC district-level responses
identified as Survey Group #1B, (3) Valley Christian High School as Survey
Group #2A, and (4) Valley Christian High School district-level as Survey
Group #2B.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data Collection
The data collection and interviews were conducted in May of 2003.
Prior to the data collection and interviews; the researcher contacted the
private parochial secondary school and the public school district in seeking
approval for this research project. Contact was made with participating
school districts in December 2002, and a formal letter was sent to the
principal of the parochial school and to the assistant superintendent of
curriculum and Instruction for the public school in January 2003 (Appendix A-
6b). The researcher was instructed by the assistant superintendent of the
public school district to contact the director of schools for the district who
would oversee the project. In early March, the researcher was asked by the
director of schools to provide a copy of the research proposal to the assistant
superintendent of curriculum and Instruction, who approved the project.
Once the project was approved by the parochial school and the public
school, a pre-collection meeting was conducted via email with the parochial
school principal and via voice-mail with the public school, wherein the
researcher and the school participants negotiated the process by which the
project would proceed.
Data Collection began with a pre-meeting in January 2003, followed
by a pre-established interview meeting in May. Data collection with the
public school began in May with a joint meeting with the director of schools
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and the principal of Gahr High School at the district office. Data documents
were collected starting in April and May that included governing board
policies for the parochial school and the public school. Documents that were
collected included a description of duties of the superintendent, school
principal, and other administrative staff (Appendix A-7). Additionally, public
school policy on evaluation of public school management staff (school
administrators) (Appendix A-8) and the parochial school Recommended
Administrative Evaluation Procedures (Appendix A-9).
In addition to the interview with the principal of the parochial school,
questionnaires and surveys were sent to the superintendent and one
assistant principal, and a total of three questionnaires were returned
providing a response rate of 100%. The researcher conducted a joint
interview with the director of schools and the principal of Gahr High School,
in which questionnaires and a survey were distributed to each principal and
three assistant principals at the high school. A total of five
questionnaires/surveys were distributed and returned, providing a total
response rate of 100%. In order to provide anonymity to the research
participants, the dissertation findings, conclusions, and recommendations did
not identify research participants by name. Directions were provided to study
participants, who were instructed to return the completed questionnaire in a
postage-paid return envelope attached with the survey (Appendix A-10).
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
One of the major problems the researcher faced was completing
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval
authorization process for research involving human subjects. The application
process was unclear, taking 12-13 weeks for approval. This process delayed
important data collection processes, and limited the number of potential
study participants. Due to the lengthy approval process, the researcher was
unable to meet with school site administrators to review the project
questionnaire, therefore leaving the explanation and distribution to the
Principals for each schooling sector.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter IV
Results of the Study - The Findings
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings of the case study
in relation to each of the six research questions. This chapter presents an
analysis of the collected data in the study in which administrative evaluations
systems were investigated at a public secondary school and a private
parochial secondary school. This chapter reports on the results of the
questionnaires that were given to school site administrators in each sector,
including the school principal and the district-level administrator who
evaluates the school principal. This chapter also gives a summary of the
structured face-to-face interviews, and school organizational documents.
The focus of the study was to analyze two practice settings, a private
and public secondary school, in order to better understand the link between
governance and practice. This study was a comparison case study between
a typical secondary public school and one operating under a distinct
alternative governance structure. The purpose of this study was to ascertain
the influence (if any) that governance has on school administrative evaluation
systems and examine the options and the differences between the two
school sectors.
Case study methodology was used to collect data from a private and a
public secondary school in east Los Angeles County.
The data for the current study was collected using the following
instruments:
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
> An interview with district level administrator
> An interview with school site Principals
> A likert-scale administrator evaluation questionnaire from select
district and school site administrators regarding leadership skills and
standards
> An open-form questionnaire from select district and school site
administrators regarding evaluation systems
Two separate interviews were conducted, one with the principal of the
parochial school and an interview with public school district personal,
consisting of the Director of Schools and the Principal of the high school. A
narrative summarizes what was learned from each of the interviews.
Questionnaires were given to the principals at the time of the interview to
distribute to site administrators, although each questionnaire was
anonymous, a total of seven questionnaires were returned resulting in 100%
response. Interviews were conducted face-to-face and notes were taken as
well as audiotaping.
Presentation and Analysis of Data/Structured Interviews
Structured interviews were a part of this study to identify the impact of
governance structure on administrator evaluations systems. Interviews
began with the Principal of the parochial school, and followed with a joint
meeting of the district personnel the following week. District staff included
the Director of Schools and the Principal from the high school in this study.
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Due to factors beyond the control of the researcher, one structured interview
was conducted at each school site. This section reviews the outcomes of the
structured interviews.
Interview Summary with Valley Christian High School
The first interview began with Kevin Kaemingk, Principal of Valley
Christian High School. Mr. Kaemingk shared an overview of the school, the
staff structure, evaluation procedures and the governance structure of the
school. The following is a narrative of the researchers interview.
The school is a private, non-profit parochial school, and they are not
required to teach to state standards or required to meet the Academic
Performance Index (API) scores. The school is working towards inclusion of
standards into the classroom, along with Essential Student Learning Results
(ESLRs), similar to what is found in public education. The school principal
discussed the need for accountability and shared that the schools curriculum
was “developing” to include accountability components such as curriculum
standards and ESLRs. School ESLR’s are designed with a “Christian”
perspective. Administrators’ evaluations in the parochial school include a
faith-based component, where they are required to attend one of the 11
anchor churches affiliated with the organization. Administrators are asked
annually, at the beginning of the school year, to submit personal goals and
objectives. Goals set by the administrators are reviewed bi-annually by the
superintendent and by the Executive Committee of the Board. In addition to
the goals and objectives, every two years the staff completes the
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Administrator Image Questionnaire (AIQ) (Appendix A -11), which is made
up of twenty-five items related to leadership skills and procedures. The
Board completes the AIQ on the superintendent. The AIQ is ranked on the
Linkert scale of Poor to Excellent on the following items:
• Verbal Fluency
• Consideration of Others
• Attitude Toward Job
• Technical Competence
• Achievement Drive
• Supportiveness
• Flexibility
• Performance Under Stress
• Openness
• Encouragement of Staff Participation
• Ability to Delegate Responsibility
• Innovativeness
• Success in Communicating Expectations
• Fairness
• Maintenance of Staff Morale
• Sense of Humor
• Decision-making Ability
• Evaluating Ability
• Managerial Skill
• Awareness
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Self-control
• Leadership Skill
• Appearance
• Loyalty to the Organization
• Ability to Motivate Others
The principal evaluation requires them to attend church and be
involved in their local church. The school’s administrative contract states, “If
the Administrator has children, they must attend a Bellflower Christian School
appropriate for the child’s age and grade.” Administrators are required to
exhibit, both on and off campus, a firm commitment to Christian morals and
principles. Evaluation expectations include leading the staff in a daily
devotion.
The Principal viewed the Board as a group that “ trusted” the
administrative staff to carry out the decision-making in a professional
manner. When the researcher asked questions pertaining to directions from
the Board and curriculum issues, the Principal stated that any issues would
normally come from either the teaching staff or the administrative staff; these
issues are then taken to the education committee for review. All
administrators develop goals and objectives, which are reviewed; a written
evaluation is conducted in January-February along with a follow-up. When
asked about professional standards for educational leaders, such as those
developed by the ISLLC or CPSEL, parochial school administrators were
divided in their knowledge of such standards. In addition, administrators
believed that public school leaders were held to a more stringent criterion in
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the evaluation process because of the governance structure, which includes
curriculum that incorporates state standards and the Academic Performance
Index (API). Valley Christian high school, like many private schools in
California is not required to meet the state’s mandated academic
performance index, nor is the school required to implement state required
standards into the curriculum. However, Valley Christian is aware of the
challenges all high school students face in post-secondary educational
institutions. The school has developed their own expected school-wide
learning results (ESLR). In addition, when asked about state curriculum
standards, the principal said the school was looking into the standards. The
standards are not a piece of the curriculum mapping, but “ the school is
looking into them.” It was noted by one administrator that some private
schools develop their own set of student performance standards versus
following state standards. Credentialing requirements are much different
between the two schooling sectors. Administrative credentialing in the
private sector is not a requirement. The topic did not come up during the
initial interview at the parochial school, it was noticed or it became apparent
later when this researcher was compiling differences between the two
sectors. The middle school principal in the Bellflower Christian Schools
organization is the only administrator to hold an administrative services
credential; all other principals in the parochial district do not. The principal of
the secondary parochial school commented, “ They [State of California]
expect little of us and give little as well.”
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Interview Summary with ABC Unified School District
The second interview was held at the public school district office and
included Kathy Frazer, The Director of Schools, and George Kambeitz, the
principal of Gahr High School. We began the interview with a discussion of
the evaluation process. Principals for the district are evaluated on their goals
and objectives that are developed and tied to the district’s strategic plan.
These goals and objectives are developed during the beginning of the school
year. Towards the end of April, the principals in the district receive a self
reflection evaluation (Appendix A-12) from the director of schools, which is
reviewed along with the principal’s evaluation on goals and objectives
(Appendix A-13). The public school principal evaluation for ABC U.S.D. has
three parts to it:
1. Goals and Objectives tied to the District’s Strategic Plan
2. Leadership Skills
3. Fiscal Management
Evaluations are reviewed and completed during the months of June
and July for all principals. The Director of Schools completes approximately
31 evaluations for each school site in the district, including the district adult
school.
This study reviewed administrator evaluation systems at the school -
site level. The high school in this study, Gahr High School, has eight
administrators including guidance administrators who hold a Pupil Personnel
Services credential (PPS) and an Administrative Services credential.
Guidance administrators are responsible for the evaluation of the certificated
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
staff; the Assistant Principal (AP) in charge of the guidance administrators
does their evaluations every other year. The school site has three AP’s; the
Principal conducts their evaluation every other year. AP’s are given a self-
evaluation and instructed at the beginning of the year to develop goals and
objectives tied to the district’s strategic plan. The Gahr High School
Principal, George Kambeitz, was open in sharing that AP’s are not evaluated
on leadership skills. AP’s are evaluated in the following areas:
1. Instructional programs
2. Professional staff
3. Partnership
4. School Facilities
5. Working-Learning Environment
Principals and Assistant Principals (AP’s) at school-sites within the
district are evaluated based on the academic performance index. Kathy
Frazier, The Director of Schools for ABC U.S.D. said, “This is just reality of
education today. AP’s are evaluated in terms of the activities the school has
to implement to make changes as a reflection of API scores.”
Questionnaire Rating Scale and Analysis
Descriptive statistics for each of the survey items were summarized
into six tables related to the findings for each of the six research questions.
The results of the study, an analysis of the data collected, and the findings
are provided in this chapter. A summary and analysis of each questionnaire
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
item are described in this chapter in the section Summary of Questionnaire
Results.
An average mean was tabulated from the returned questionnaires.
Research questions 1-5 on the questionnaire were ranked on a score from
one to five, five being very important and one being not important. Questions
6-14 were written response questions, which were used to answer the six
research questions, outlined in chapter four, and questionnaire items 15-25
related to organizational effectiveness. These questions attempted to elicit
information pertaining to governance structure and were ranked on the Likert
scale and assigned the following point system:
Strongly Disagree = 1 point
Disagree = 2 points
Neither Agree or Disagree = 3 points
Agree = 4 points
Strongly Agree = 5 points
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2-Leadership Skill Importance in Evaluations
Question #1 :To what extent do you feel each of the following
leadership skills is important to effective school administration?
Key: 5
1 =
= very important
= not important
Parochial
School
Public
School
a. Visionary 4.6 5.0
b. Interdependence 4.3 4.6
c. Integrity 5.0 5.0
d. Serving 5.0 4.2
e. Change agent 4.3 5.0
f. community relations 4.3 5.0
g-
Collegial 4.3 5.0
h. Inspiring 4.0 4.6
i. self inventor 3.66 4.4
j-
culture creator 4.0 5.0
k. hope instiller 4.6 4.8
I. T rustworthy 5.0 5.0
m. Creative 3.3 4.2
n. Dedicated 4.6 5.0
0. risk taker 3.66 4.4
P -
goal oriented 4.6 4.4
q-
Learner 4.6 5.0
r. Manager 4.0 3.0
s. Organized 4.3 4.2
t. Systems thinker 4.3 4.0
u. Communication 5.0 5.0
V. Resourceful 4.0 4.4
w. Decisive 4.3 5.0
X. Flexible 4.6 4.0
y-
Caring 4.6 4.0
z. Values-driven 5.0 4.8
aa. Modeling 4.6 4.4
bb. self-reflective 4.0 4.0
cc. instructional leader 4.3 5.0
Curriculum 3.6 5.0
Assessment 4.0 5.0
learning theories 3.6 4.8
instructional strategies 4.0 4.8
adult learning 4.0 4.0
dd. Persistent 4.3 4.4
e e . capacity builder 4.0 4.4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3-Leadership Skills in Administrator Evaluations
Question #2:To what extent do the following leadership skills occur in
the evaluation process of administrators within your district?
Key: 5 = Often
1 = Not Very Often
Parochial
School
Public
School
a. Visionary 3.3 4.8
b. Interdependence 3.0 4.4
c. Integrity 4.6 4.8
d. Serving 4.0 3.6
e. change agent 3.3 4.4
f. Community relations 3.6 4.6
g-
Collegial 3.0 4.2
h. Inspiring 3.0 4.2
i. self inventor 2.6 4.4
j-
culture creator 2.6 4.2
k. hope instiller 2.6 4.2
1 . Trustworthy 3.0 4.4
m. Creative 4.0 4.8
n. Dedicated 3.3 4.0
o. risk taker 4.0 4.6
P-
goal oriented 4.6 4.6
q-
Learner 3.0 4.8
r. Manager 4.3 3.8
s. Organized 4.3 4.2
t. Systems thinker 3.0 4.2
u. Communication 4.3 5.0
V. Resourceful 3.3 5.0
w. Decisive 3.3 4.8
X. Flexible 4.0 4.6
y-
Caring 5.0 4.4
z. values-d riven 5.0 4.2
aa. Modeling 4.0 4.8
bb. self-reflective 2.3 4.6
cc. instructional leader 3.6 4.8
Curriculum 3.6 4.8
Assessment 3.3 4.8
learning theories 2.6 4.6
instructional strategies 2.0 4.4
adult learning 1.6 4.4
dd. Persistent 3.6 3.8
ee. Capacity builder 3.0 4.2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4-Time Spent on Leadership Standards
Question #3. Leadership Framework: The aforementioned leadership
skills can be categorized into the leadership areas of vision, culture
and instruction, management, collaboration, ethics, and politics/social
context as outlined by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium (ISLLC) in the development of administrator standards.
How much of your time is devoted to each of the following leadership
Key:
areas?
5 = Often
1 = Not Very Often
Parochial
School
Public
School
a. Vision 3.0 4.4
b. Culture and Instruction 3.0 4.8
c. Management 4.3 3.8
d. Collaboration 3.3 4.8
e. Ethics 3.3 4.4
f. Political/Social Context 3.0 3.2
Table 5-Leadership Standards in Administrator Evaluations
Question #4. To what extent do the leadership framework areas
suggested by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium
(ISLLC) or the California Professional Standards for Educational
Leaders (CPSEL) occur in your evaluation process?
Key: 5 = Often Parochial Public
1 = Not Very Often School School
a. Vision 3.6 4.4
b. Culture and Instruction 3.6 4.4
c. Management 4.3 4.6
d. Collaboration 3.0 4.8
e. Ethics 4.3 4.4
f. Political/Social Context 3.0 4.0
Table 6-Effective Evaluations
Question #5. In your opinion, how effective is your district’s evaluation
process in assessing leadership skills necessary for successful school
leadership?
Key: 5 = Very Effective Parochial Public
1 = Not Very Effective School School
3.0 4.4
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research participants were asked to respond to short written responses for
questions 6-14 of their questionnaire. Their responses are summarized in this
chapter in the section Summary of Questionnaire Results.
Summary statistics for Questions 15-25 are outlined in table 7 below.
Table 7-Organizational Structure
Key: 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Slightly Agree, 3 =
Neither Agree or Disagree, 2 = Slightly Disagree, 1 =
Strongly Disagree
Parochial
School
Public
School
15. My school district has developed and
communicated a clear and concise evaluation system
3.3 4.0
16. Management/supervisory roles and
responsibilities have been clearly defined and
communicated so that each knows what the others
are accountable for.
3.3 4.0
17. Administrative evaluation is used to measure my
capabilities, skills, and interests.
2.6 3.9
18. Our administrative evaluation system is generally
timely, effective, and efficient.
3.6 4.0
19. Differences of opinion relating to administrative
evaluations are encouraged and listened to by the
appropriate staff.
2.6 3.4
20. We have an effective and efficient management
information system pertaining to administrative
evaluation goals and objectives.
3.0 3.6
21. The California Academic Performance Index (API)
is only a small part of administrative evaluations
throughout the organization.
2.0 4.2
22. Our evaluation policies, procedures, and practices
are equitably and consistently applied from year to
year.
3.6 4.0
23. All of us, district and school site administrators are
commit
ted to satisfying the needs and priorities of our
students and their families, who are our “ customers”.
4.0 4.4
24. California Professional Standards for Educational
Leaders are used in my evaluation.
1.6 4.0
25. School leadership performance can be evaluated. 4.6 4.6
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Summary of Research Questions
The data obtained from the selected parochial school (Valley Christian
High School) and the public school district (ABC Unified School District) was
analyzed to answer the following six research questions developed for this
study:
1. How are administrative evaluations undertaken in public education?
2. What are the principle forces that shape administrative evaluations in
public education?
3. How are administrative evaluations undertaken in private educational
institutions?
4. What are the principle forces that shape administrative evaluations in
private educational institutions?
5. How, if at all, do administrative evaluations practiced in public
education differ from the practices in private educational institutions?
6. How, if at all, do the forces differ with administrative evaluations
between public and private educational institutions?
Research Question One: How are administrative evaluations
undertaken in public education?
Research question one asked, “How are administrative evaluations
undertaken in public education?" The focus of this research question is on
the process of evaluations in the public sector. Secondary principals are
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evaluated by district administration, and assistant principals are evaluated by
school site principals. The process for evaluation is similar for the principal
and the assistant principal. Goals and objectives are developed by using the
district’s overall strategic plan. Evaluations are summative in nature,
developed at the beginning of the school year, reviewed at a designated mid
point and reviewed at the end of the year. Principals are evaluated on “artful
leadership skills” (Appendix A-13); the artful leadership skills used in
evaluation of secondary principal for this public school district includes the
following:
o Symbolic leadership
o Effective decision-making
o Ethics - values as leaders
o Creating and sustaining a shared vision
o Communicating in a new era
o Inspirational leadership
o Creating the capacity for innovation
o Consensus building
o Management by results
o W e lead individually and collectively, by example
o W e see others as colleagues and not subordinates
o W e strive to earn others’ trust and loyalty by actions
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
o W e praise in public; admonish in private
o W e tell the truth in supportive ways
o W e systematically reward accomplishments
o W e systematically confront incompetence
o W e stand firm on principle but abandon bad assumptions
o W e value listening and asking as much as telling and directing.
Principals are asked to describe three to five instances where the
artful leadership skills have been utilized. District principals are also asked to
describe their budget management process, and how principals involve their
staff in the fiscal management process. The public school district has
developed artful leadership skills for use in the evaluation of all principals in
the district; however, it is not clear if standards developed by the California
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL) are being
considered for inclusion into future administrative evaluations.
Most evaluations in the district are a combination of summative and
formative. The district’s current evaluation process includes goals and
objectives, which are developed, based on the district’s strategic plan and
reviewed at the end of the year; this activity is a summative-type evaluation
method. What separates the district’s process is the self-evaluation activity
required by principals and assistant principals. It is unclear if professional
growth activities are tied to the district’s evaluation system.
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABC Unified School District policy on “Evaluation of Certificated
Management Personnel” outlines board regulations (governance structure)
undertaken in public education. The ABC U.S.D. policy specifies that
administrators be evaluated every other year, with new employees being
evaluated annually for two years, pending satisfactory evaluation, and then
be evaluated every other year. “ The evaluator shall by October 15, hold one
or more meetings to review the procedures for setting standards, techniques
for assessment, and to review the evaluation calendar for the year” (ABC
U.S.D. Board Regulation 4315.1).
ABC Unified School District has a clear and defined governance
structure in place for the evaluation of certificated management employees
(school administrators). The district structure outlines specific activities
required of the evaluator and the evaluatee, including requirements for
meeting needed improvements as identified on the administrators evaluation.
The Superintendent and Governing School Board play little, if any, role in the
evaluation of district administrators.
Research Question Two: What are the principle forces that shape
administrative evaluations in public education?
Research question two asked, “ What are the principle forces that
shape administrative evaluations in public education?” The focus of this
research question attempts to establish specific factors and/or trends that
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
seek to influence and form administrative evaluation systems in public
education. Several forces shape administrative evaluation systems in the
public school. District philosophy and vision, the California Academic
Performance Index (API) score, and time constraints help to shape
evaluations.
The first factor that tends to shape the evaluation process for this
public school district is the administrations philosophy at the district level.
Kathy Frazier, Director of Schools for ABC Unified and George Kambeitz, the
secondary principal for Gahr High School, shared that the Superintendent of
ABC Unified School District, Dr. Ron Barnes, has a “philosophy of inclusion.”
The current superintendent has brought together a governance structure
(with the governing school board) that “values” individuals and “people
working together.” The organization believes in a governance structure that
moves forward. The most important force that can shape administrative
evaluation in public education is to have a “meaningful” evaluation process.
The district’s, and in turn the superintendents’ vision of the district must be
shared by all district employees. The districts vision must be communicated
to administration. The district requires administrators to tie their goals and
objectives to the district’s strategic plan, and this requires administrators to
set “real and meaningful” goals and objectives. The end goals, or the
specific reason for evaluation must be stated and defined, otherwise the
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evaluation process becomes “meaningless and contributes little to the
accomplishments of the district’s goals” (Webb & Norton, 2003, p. 365).
The academic performance index (API) is a force that shapes
evaluations in the district. School administrators are evaluated by their
school’s performance on the state of California’s academic performance
index. This study did not explore the challenges administrators face when
they do not meet improvement of the school’s API score, especially if the
school is a low performing school. Assistant Principals are held accountable
and evaluated on the API in terms of programs and school activities
implemented in making changes in reflection of API scores. Time constraints
in the evaluation process place challenges on Kathy Frazier, Director of
Schools, whose responsibility lies with the evaluations of all principals in the
district. School-site principals are responsible for the evaluation of the staff,
however, time does not permit them to perform evaluations, and most of the
required evaluations are delegated to other administrators.
Research Question Three: How are administrative evaluations
undertaken in private educational institutions?
Research question three asked, “How are administrative evaluations
undertaken in private educational institutions?” The focus of research
question three is on the process of evaluations in the private sector. Outlined
in the previous section Structured Interview Summary, Administrators at the
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
parochial school are required to submit personal goals and objectives at the
beginning of the school year. “Board Policy Manual” for Valley Christian High
School states, “These [goals and objectives] will be stated in such a way that
they can be measured and attained, and will include a completion date. The
goals written by each administrator will be reviewed bi-annually by the
superintendent and by the Executive Committee of the Board. An
opportunity will be given to amend this list when it is deemed appropriate,
either by the administration or by the Executive Committee.”
The administrator evaluation process at the parochial school has
greater structure that what was found in the public school sector. The
parochial school’s governance structure is somewhat more “bureaucratic”
than the public sector, in such that the superintendent and the Executive
Committee of the Board of Directors are involved in the school’s evaluation
system. Recommended procedures suggest including input from the
Superintendent’s Advisory Council and/or the Building Advisory Committee.
In contrast to the involvement of other groups in the evaluation process at the
parochial school, the superintendent is the only individual reviewing
evaluations at the public school district, and that is on a need to do so basis.
In addition to possible committee input into administrator evaluations in the
private sector, and Executive Board of Directors input into the process, the
school-site staff may do an evaluation on their school-site administrator.
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Leadership skills and standards have yet to be incorporated into
administrative evaluations. Responses by participants on the research
questionnaire reflect a positive attitude towards professional leadership
standards. When research participants were asked, “Do you feel it is
beneficial to develop an evaluation process around a leadership framework
such as the one suggested by the ISLLC or CPSEL,” most respondents
agreed, citing vision as one of the key components in the standards they
believe to be important.
Research Question Four: What are the principle forces that shape
administrative evaluations in private educational institutions?
Research question four asked, “ What are the principle forces that
shape administrative evaluations in private institutions?” The focus of
research question four attempts to establish specific factors and trends that
seeks to influence and form the administrative evaluation systems in private
institutions. Unlike the public sector, administrators at the parochial school
are evaluated on their behavior, church involvement and church attendance.
Their behavior outside the school is a much larger factor in the evaluation
process than their counterparts in the public school sector. When asked if
there are specific forces that help to shape administrator evaluations at the
parochial school, respondents on the questionnaire stated that job
descriptions outlined in the governing Board Policy Manual are factors; the
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Administrative Council was said to have had an influence in the evaluation
process. The Administrative Council reviews problems and crisis situations
as well as school-wide concerns, schedules, budgets, and personnel issues.
The minutes for these structured meetings are provided to the Executive
Committee as a means of oversight and as a monitor to the activities of the
school administration.
Seven broad-based areas influence evaluations of parochial school
administrators. Using a Likert scales, administrators are rated from 1 -5 ,
one being a score of inadequate and five being a score of outstanding. The
administrative categories are:
□ Spiritual Leadership
□ Relationship with the Board
□ Relationship with the Superintendent
□ Supervision and Evaluation of Staff
□ Relationship with Parents and Community
□ Student Leadership
□ Business and Finance
Research Question Five: How, if at all, do administrative
evaluations practiced in public education differ from the practices in
private educational institutions?
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research question five asked, “How, if at all, do administrative
evaluations practiced in public education differ from the practices in
private educational institutions?” The focus of research question five is
on the differences between two distinct schooling sectors where
governance affects the schooling process of administrative evaluations.
There are more similarities than there are differences. Valley Christian
High School uses the entire school staff in the evaluation of their
administrators. Moral character is very important with each employee at
the school. The staff (teachers, support staff, and administrators) is
expected to be the example. Employees are given the opportunity to
evaluate their supervisor by means of the Administrative Image
Questionnaire (AIQ). When asked what are the religious aspects that
must be considered in the parochial school setting that is different from
the public school setting, responses from the short written questionnaire
were:
“ All leadership aspects can be related to Jesus Christ, my Lord
and Savior. Our school needs to model His teachings,
Leadership, and Guidance”
“Spiritual leadership and modeling. Integration of Christian
perspective”
“Leadership/creation of a spiritual climate on campus”
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ethics is an area that is reviewed by most administrators; both
schooling sectors in this study identified the importance of ethics. The
parochial school went further in this area, making requirements of their
administrators to perform a duty in their neighborhood church, and to set the
example by not only participating in church activities but by being involved in
the church itself. “Spiritual leadership” requirements of the administration are
not unique to parochial schools; they are not a part of the public sector. The
spiritual leadership qualities that administrators are evaluated on are:
❖ Models Christian leadership
❖ Gives spiritual encouragement and direction
❖ Seeks ways to grow as a Christian leader
❖ Demonstrates Christian commitment and service to the community
❖ Displays “Fruits of the Spirit”
❖ Articulates a clear philosophy of Christian education
❖ Helps the faculty to integrate their Christian faith with their teaching
Research Question Six: How, if at all, do the forces differ with
administrative evaluations between public and private educational
institutions?
Research question six asked, “How, if at all, do the forces differ with
administrative evaluations between public and private institutions?” The
focus of research question six is on the different forces and trends that
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
influence administrative evaluations. One of the most obvious differences
has to do with the time element that evaluations have with any organization.
The public school has more administrators, strictly due to the fact that the
district and the school-sites are much larger. The governance structure
influences the process.
Private schools are not held accountable by the education code in
terms of evaluation of education employees. Most private schools are not
mandated to follow the education code; therefore the process of
administrator evaluations should be a more simplified task. However, the
findings in this study reflected a greater bureaucratic evaluation system.
Local governing boards make their own decisions when it comes to the
standards of the administrators evaluation system. In the private sector,
findings in this study reported a greater number of individuals involved in the
evaluation process with greater detail.
Summary Findings of Questionnaire
In reviewing the data from the questionnaires, each question was
reviewed and scored based on the point system developed for each set of
questions. Descriptive statistics were tabulated to provide M for each of the
survey items and summarized into six tables. Table 2 and Table 3 provided
a list of 36 skills developed from the Williams (2001) Effective School study.
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2 asked study participants to rank skill items from one to five, five
being most important and Table 3 asked participants to rank items as to how
often they are used, five being often and 1 being not very often. Table 4 and
5 listed the skills based on leadership framework suggested by the Interstate
School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) and the California
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL). Table 6 was a
stand-alone question on evaluation effectiveness, and Table 7 reports
general questions regarding school district organizational structure.
Valley Christian High School Findings
The results tabulated and reported in Table 2 were based on the
question, “ To what extent do you feel each of the following leadership skills is
important to effective school administrators?” The overall M for the parochial
school for all items was 4.2. The lowest scoring skill found in Table 2 was in
response to being creative, which scored 3.3 (most respondents believing it
was not an important skill in school administration). Table 3 asked, “ To what
extent do the following leadership skills occur in the evaluation process of
administrators within your district?” The same 36 items as Table 2 were
included on this question; the overall M was 3.43. There were 13 items that
scored 3.0 or below; they include interdependence, collegial, inspiring, self
inventor, culture creator, hope instiller, trustworthy, learner, systems thinker,
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
self-reflective, learning theories, instructional strategies, and adult learning.
Respondents from the questionnaire reported these thirteen items are
seldom seen in their evaluation process. Table 4 was based on leadership
framework and asked, “The aforementioned leadership skills can be
categorized into the leadership areas of vision, culture and instruction,
management, collaboration, ethics, and politics/social context as outlined by
the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) in the
development of administrator standards. How much of your time is devoted
to each of the following leadership areas?” The overall M was 3.31.
However, the highest-ranking item for this question was management, which
scored 4.3 out of a total 5. The 4.3 rating in the area of management in
Table 4 represents, on the whole, that administrators at Valley Christian High
School spend more time being managers than leaders. Table 5 asked, “ To
what extent do the leadership framework areas suggested by the Interstate
School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) or the California Professional
Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL) occur in your evaluation
process?" The overall M was 3.6. The highest score reflected management,
which scored 4.3. Table 6 asked, “In your opinion, how effective is your
district’s evaluation process in assessing leadership skills necessary for
successful school leadership?” The ranking for this question ranged from
five, being very effective and one, being not very effective; the overall score
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
was 3.0. Table 7 reports on organizational structure. Question #24 asked
about the use of professional standards in evaluation systems and, it ended
up with the lowest scoring with an average mean of 1.6 followed by 2.0 for
question #21 having to do with the California academic performance index.
The scoring for these two questions conclude that little time is spent on
leadership standards and the academic performance index which are two
items that private schools are exempt from having to work with. The study
doesn’t conclude that these items are not important to school administrators
at Valley Christian, but rather it reflects that these items are not used in the
daily administration of students and staff. The overall M for all questions on
organizational structure was 3.42 out of a total score of 5.
Gahr High School Findings and Comparison
The results for Gahr High School, tabulated and reported in Table 2,
were based on the question, “ To what extent do you feel each of the
following leadership skills is important to effective school administrators?”
The overall M for all 36-skill items was 4.57. The lowest scoring skill found in
Table 2 was in response to being a manager, which scored 3.0. Most
respondents believed it was not an important skill in school administration.
This may reflect a greater view of administrators towards seeing themselves
as leaders, rather than managers. An additional finding in Table 2 is what
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the two schooling sectors have in common. Integrity, trustworthy, and
communication all scored an M of 5.0, important qualities not only for the
parochial school but also for leaders in general. Table 3 asked, “ To what
extent do the following leadership skills occur in the evaluation process of
administrators within your district?” The overall M was 4.45, reflecting a
much higher scoring mean than found in the parochial school. Research
findings report that leadership skills overall tend to be found in the evaluation
more often than the private school. The lowest scoring skill in Table 3 was
serving, which scored a mean of 3.6. Manager was low compared to other
skill items in Table 3; manager and persistent scored 3.8. Table 4 was
based on leadership framework and asked, “The aforementioned leadership
skills can be categorized into the leadership areas of vision, culture and
instruction, management, collaboration, ethics, and politics/social context as
outlined by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) in
the development of administrator standards. How much of your time is
devoted to each of the following leadership areas?” The M was 4.23. The
lowest scoring item was management; administrators again reflected
spending the least amount of time managing, leaving this study to conclude
school administrators (leaders) should spend their time leading as opposed
to managing. Table 5 asked, “To what extent do the leadership framework
areas suggested by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(ISLLC) or the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders
(CPSEL) occur in your evaluation process?” The overall M in the public
sector was 4.43 compared to a parochial school mean of 3.6 on the same
question. The lowest scoring item in this question was political/social
context, which scored 4.0. The finding here may reveal that public school
administrators spend little time managing others, yet there are expectations
in their evaluation of others. Additional findings may reflect that the study
participants, mostly school site administrators, don’t see themselves in the
political or social context where they need to influence and support the
policies of the governing school board by working with district and local
leaders to influence the policy making. Table 6 asked, “In your opinion, how
effective is your district’s evaluation process in assessing leadership skills
necessary for successful school leadership?” The ranking for this question
ranged from five, being very effective and one, being not very effective; the
overall score was 4.4. Public school administrators in the district being
studied reported a greater sense of effectiveness in their evaluation system
than did the parochial school administrators. Table 7 reports on
organizational structure; the lowest scoring items were question #19, which
asked, “Difference of opinion relating to administrative evaluations are
encouraged and listened to by the appropriate staff.” The M for this was 3.4.
The overall M for all questions in organizational structure reflects 4.41. The
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
public school administrator believed the school organizational structure was
appropriate. The highest scoring item in this section was a mean of 4.6 for
question #25, which stated, “School leadership performance can be
evaluated”. It is interesting to note that both schooling sectors scored a
mean of 4.6 on this question.
Chapter IV: Conclusion of Findings
Chapter IV provided the reader with findings of the field research of
the two schooling sectors, a secondary parochial school and a secondary
public school in east Los Angeles County. This chapter presented an
analysis of collected data in which administrative evaluations were
investigated at each of the practice sectors. This study identified influence of
school governance structures on school leadership evaluations. Interviews
were conducted at both practice sectors; a summary of the interviews
reported the overall process of administrator evaluations and the governance
structures that assist in moving evaluations along. Findings on each of the
six research questions were reported using structured face-to-face interviews
and survey instruments. Survey items were summarized into six tables
related to the findings for each of the six research questions. The M was
tabulated from the returned questionnaires, starting with Table 2 and 3,
which reported a higher overall score for the public school sector on skills
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
important to administrators and their evaluation process. Table 4 reported of
the amount of time devoted to leadership areas; the study reflected a higher
overall score in the public sector with management scoring higher in the
parochial school than the public school. Table 5 reported that private and
public school administrators in the management of employees spent more
time being managers than leaders. Table 6 reported on how effective school
organizations are in their evaluation process. The public school
administrators scored a M of 4.4 and the parochial school scored 3.0.
Finally, Table 7 reported on governance structure and findings were
identified.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter V
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
This chapter summarizes the study, discusses the conclusions drawn
from the findings, and sets forth recommendations.
Summary of This Study
The purpose of the study was to better understand the link between
governance and practice. This study was a comparison between a typical
secondary public school and a school operating under a distinct alternative
governance structure. Valley Christian High School was selected as the
private alternative governance structure and Gahr High School in the ABC
Unified School District as the public school. Two secondary schools were
asked to participate in this study, which included reviewing school-site and
district policy and face-to-face interviews with school-site principals and
district level administrators. The study required the completion of a written
questionnaire pertaining to professional skills and standards and governance
structure. The information collected, and data analyzed offered some
answers to the questions raised about governance structure and schooling
practice. This study made attempts to ascertain the influence (if any) that
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
governance structure has on school leadership evaluation practices and
examined the options between the two schooling sectors. Another purpose
of this study was to examine the differences between two schooling
organizations, and describe the variations in leadership evaluation practices
associated with those differences.
This study reported information on recent changes for school leaders
in the development of professional standards for school leaders. Changes in
school leadership began with the publication of leadership standards by the
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) who issued
Standards for School Leaders in November, 1996 (See Appendix A-2).
These standards were developed with the understanding that formal
leadership in schools and school districts is "complex and multi-faceted" as
reported in Standards for School Leaders (1996). The purpose of the ISLLC
Consortium is to provide a means through which states can work together to
develop and implement model standards, assessments, professional
development, and licensing procedures for school leaders. The overarching
goals of ISLLC are to raise the bar for school leaders to enter and remain in
the profession, and to reshape concepts of educational leadership.
The literature, in this study, reported that two primary reasons existed
for developing leadership standards:
(1) The work on standards in other areas of educational reform has
lead to developing leadership standards.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(2) There seemed to be a major "void" in the area of school leadership
that warranted the need for professional standards for school leaders.
Along with the development of leadership standards, have come
specific goals, as identified by the ISLLC in developing leadership standards.
The ISLLC standards were adopted by the Consortium in 1996 and are in
use throughout the country.
This study also identified two primary goals as they relate to
leadership standards. They are:
1. To raise awareness about quality education administration.
2. To provide materials to enhance the quality of education
administration.
The development of standards and the leadership goals that followed
have helped to give school leaders direction and focus on what are perceived
by school leadership organizations to be the framework for effective
leadership. Effective leadership empowers an organization to maximize its
contribution to the well being of its members and to the larger society of
which it is a part. One reason why school leaders have been ineffective in
managing organizations is because there has been a lack of professional
leadership standards in which they could model. With this in mind, six
research questions were developed to guide the study:
1. How are administrative evaluations undertaken in public
education?
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. What are the principle forces that shape administrative
evaluations in public education?
3. How are administrative evaluations undertaken in private
educational institutions?
4. What are the principle forces that shape administrative
evaluations in private educational institutions?
5. How, if at all, do administrative evaluations practiced in public
education differ from the practices in private educational
institutions?
6. How, if at all, do the forces differ with administrative evaluations
between public and private educational institutions?
Summary of Methodology and Sample Population
This comparative case study used qualitative, descriptive research
methods in its examination and comparison of two secondary schools. The
two schools examined had similar populations and were in two different
practice sectors. This study was designed to identify the possible influence
of school governance structures on school leadership evaluations within the
two practice sectors.
The public school selected for this study is Gahr High School (in
Cerritos), which is one of three comprehensive high schools located in the
ABC Unified School District. The private school is Valley Christian High
School (in Cerritos), and it is located a few hundred feet from Gahr. The two
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
participating schools are located in southeast Los Angeles County.
Interviews, surveys, questionnaires were used to collect data; these
instruments were adopted and modified from the Williams (2001) Effective
Leadership Study and created for this study. The case study method was
utilized in order to “shed light” and provide explanations for the phenomena
studied, governance structures and its impact on administrator evaluations,
and skills and standards (Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996).
Summary of Instrumentation
The primary instrument selected for assessing school leadership
evaluation systems was qualitative in the form of structured face-to-face
interviews, as well as quantitative data collection in the form of a survey and
questionnaire. Instruments used in this study were developed for this study,
and there were instruments used that were modified from the Williams (2001)
Effective School Leadership study. The surveys from the Williams (2001)
study included a five point ordinal scale to determine the administrator’s
perception of leadership skills and to assess how often identifiable leadership
skills occur in the evaluation process. Questions were adopted and modified
from a questionnaire handout developed by A.P. Raia (2000) Organization
Effectiveness Review. The questionnaire was pilot tested in January 2003 in
the Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District. Reliability and validity of the
researcher’s questionnaire was pre-tested with school administrators from a
neighboring public school district. The survey test group consisted of district
level and secondary school site administrators. The pilot survey group
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reviewed all survey instruments prior to its distribution to the sample
population. The pilot instruments were given to the Superintendent of
Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District who distributed the
instrumentation to administrators within the district.
Summary of Data Collection
The data collection and interviews were conducted in May of 2003.
Prior to the data collection and interviews, the researcher contacted the
private parochial secondary school and the public school district in seeking
approval for this research project. Contact was made with participating
school districts in December 2002; a formal letter was sent to the principal of
the parochial school and to the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and
Instruction for the public school in January 2003. The researcher was
instructed by the Assistant Superintendent of the public school district to
contact the Director of Schools for the district who would oversee the project.
In early March, the researcher was asked by the Director of Schools to
provide a copy of the research proposal to the Assistant Superintendent of
Curriculum and Instruction, who approved the project. Once the project was
approved by the parochial school and the public school, a pre-collection
meeting was conducted via email with the parochial school principal and via
voice-mail with the public school administrative staff, wherein the researcher
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and the school participants negotiated the process by which the project
would proceed.
In May, data Collection began with a meeting and interview of the
parochial school principal (and administration of the questionnaire and
surveys). Data collection with the public school began in May with a joint
meeting with the Director of Schools and the principal of Gahr High School at
the district office. Data documents were collected starting in April and May
that included governing board policies for the parochial school and the public
school. Documents that were collected included a description of duties of the
Superintendent, School Principal, and other Administrative staff (See
Appendix A-7). Additionally, public school policy on evaluation of public
school management staff (school administrators) (Appendix A-8) and the
parochial school Recommended Administrative Evaluation Procedures
(Appendix A-9).
In addition to the interview with the principal of the parochial school,
questionnaires and surveys were sent to the Superintendent and one
Assistant Principal, and a total of three questionnaires were returned
providing a response rate of 100%. The researcher conducted a joint
interview with the Director of Schools and the principal of Gahr High School,
in which questionnaires and a survey were distributed to each and three
administrative staff members at the high school; a total of five
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
questionnaires/surveys were distributed and returned, providing a total
response rate of 100%. In order to provide anonymity to the research
participants, the dissertation findings, conclusions, and recommendations did
not identify research participants by name. Directions were provided to study
participants, who were instructed to return the completed questionnaire in a
postage-paid return envelope attached with the survey (Appendix A -10).
One of the major problems the researcher faced was completing
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval
authorization process for research involving human subjects. The application
process was unclear, taking 12-13 weeks for approval. This process delayed
important data collection processes, and limited the number of potential
study participants. Due the lengthy approval process, the researcher was
unable to meet with school site administrators to review the project
questionnaire, therefore leaving the explanation and distribution to the
school-site principals for each school.
Data Analysis Conclusion
This case study provided the reader with findings from the field
research on two schooling sectors, a secondary parochial school and a
secondary public school in east Los Angeles County. The findings presented
an analysis of collected data in which administrative evaluations were
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
investigated at each of the practice sectors. This study identified influence of
school governance structures on school leadership evaluations. Interviews
were conducted at both practice sectors; a summary of the interviews
reported the overall process of administrator evaluations and the governance
structures that assist in moving evaluations along. Findings on each of the
six research questions were reported using structured face-to-face interviews
and survey instruments. Survey items were summarized into six tables
related to the findings for each of the six research questions. The M was
tabulated from the returned questionnaires, starting with Table 2 and 3,
which reported a higher overall score for the public school sector on skills
important to administrators and their evaluation process. Table 4 reported of
the amount of time devoted to leadership areas; the study reflected a higher
overall score in the public sector with management scoring higher in the
parochial school than the public school. Table 5 reported that private and
public school administrators in the management of employees spent more
time being managers. Table 6 reported on how effective school
organizations are in their evaluation process. The public school
administrators scored a M of 4.4 and the parochial school scored 3.0.
Finally, Table 7 reported on governance structure and findings were
reported.
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Conclusion
Gahr High School in the ABC Unified School District and Valley
Christian High School communicated that they have a structured plan in
place for the evaluation of school administrators. Secondary principals and
district leaders are working to develop administrator evaluations that are
meaningful and relevant. However, challenges continue to face school
administrators from practicing high quality leadership and implementing
sound leadership evaluation systems. In the public sector, school leaders
continue to face state mandates that prevent them from focusing their time
on leadership skills and standards; these mandates include the academic
performance index and other examinations of students’ progress. In
addition, Valley Christian faces similar challenges in school administration;
while they are not held accountable to State standards and API scores, the
parochial school in this study has its own set of accountability challenges in
working with students, staff and parents. Often times these challenges take
precedence over the implementation of new programs (such as the
implementation of professional standards for educational leaders addressed
in research question one and three.)
The Research findings to each of the six research questions were
addressed. Research question one and three asked how are evaluations
undertaken in each sector. The study reported that professional standards
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for educational leaders have not made an impact on school administrators in
either school. Public and private schools in this study have yet to implement
either the ISLLC or the CPSEL Standards. Principals in ABC U.S.D. are
evaluated on “artful” leadership skills that were described in Chapter IV of
this study. Assistant Principals at the public high school in this study are not
evaluated on any leadership standards or skills. Valley Christian High
School does not reference professional leadership standards or skills in the
evaluation of school administrators. Gahr and Valley Christian High Schools
use a self-evaluation tool in their administrative evaluation system. This self-
evaluation is a positive process in gaining feedback on the administrator
being evaluated. Valley Christian takes the process a step further by asking
staff to complete an evaluation of the administrative team at the high school.
This researcher believes the process used at Valley Christian to be more
credible then the self-evaluation only tool, providing administrators with
greater input.
Governance structure was present in both schools; the parochial
school has the Administrative Council and the AIQ (Administrative Image
Questionnaire), reported in the research of questions one and three.
Research questions two and four explored principle forces in each of the
schooling sectors. The public sector reported a positive philosophy of
inclusion by the superintendent of the district. The superintendent’s vision
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and the districts overall strategic plan seemed to shaped evaluations in the
public sector. Spiritual leadership was identified as a principle force in the
parochial organization; the governance structure believes that school leaders
are role models and should have greater expectations placed on them as
school leaders. Research question five and six reported on the differences in
the practice sectors, which have been covered in chapter four of this study.
Finally, the evaluation system currently in place at ABC Unified School
District seemed to be a model practice at face value. However, interviewee
perspectives on the role of school administrators and the evaluation system
varied. Written survey comments from school-site administrators reflected
inconsistency with what was shared during the face-to-face interviews at the
district office. Public school Principal evaluations involve one district staff
person, the Director of Schools, who completes the evaluation of all
principals at the elementary, middle and secondary schools. One of the
many duties the Director of Schools is to evaluate all principal school-site
administrators in the district, including administrators in the districts Adult
School. The task of evaluation is only one of many tasks’ delegated to the
office of the Director of Schools. During the face-to-face interviews, this
researcher asked if the Director of Schools is able to make visits to each
school site and work with each principal in the development of leadership
goals and objectives. The Director of Schools stated that they depend on
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
monthly meetings with principals in order to make contact. Uncertainty was
expressed as to whether the evaluation system in place was proficient;
therefore, this researcher concludes that the district has not made
administrator evaluations a priority. Webb and Norton (2003) pointed out
that a sound evaluation system is characterized as being a school district
priority. If the evaluation system does not have the strong support of the
district administration, evaluation will be superficial at best (Stronge, 1991).
During the face-to-face interviews for the public sector, it was discussed that
evaluations are tied to the district strategic plan, developed in part by the
District Superintendent. In a utopian society all schools would model
activities based on the districts plan for success. Responses in
administrative surveys reflected a lack of alignment by school-site leaders
with the districts strategic plan. Due to this lack of alignment within the public
school district, this researcher concludes there is a disconnect between the
level of expectations in the district and what actually happens at the school-
site.
Respondents in this study ranked leadership as being crucial to the
overall success of the school. Visionary leaders must be able to relate to the
“workers" inside the district, teachers, staff and administrators (Nanus, 1992).
Leaders without a vision become poor, or dysfunctional leaders who prove
detrimental to student achievement and the overall success of the school
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
site. It would be beneficial to those involved in the strategic planning process
in the ABC Unified School District to develop a greater awareness of
inclusion. Burt Nanus (1992) in his book Visionary Leadership said,
The right vision bridges the present and future. It is easy to get
caught up in the problems and details of everyday work. In a
company, the pressures to make a sale or get the product out the door
on schedule are often very real and urgent. Competition is keen,
crises occur regularly, and investors never seem to tire of demanding
increased profits right now - today - or at most, at the end of this
quarter. However, the visionary leader knows that the true interests of
the investors, as well as those of the firm’s managers, workers,
customers, and suppliers, are best served by an organization that
grows in its ability to serve over time, developing new products and
services, improving its quality and operations, and broadening its skills
and contributions. The right vision transcends the status quo. It
provides the all-important link between what is now taking place and
what the organization aspires to build in the future. In doing so, it
highlights those present activities that need strengthening if the vision
is to be realized. Even in a time of retrenchment, the right long-range
vision provides an indispensable guide to what must be preserved and
what can be cut back with least risk to future viability (pp. 15-16).
Recommendations
Performance accountability has moved forward in all areas of
education, from student achievement and teacher performance standards to
professional standards for educational leaders. The findings and conclusions
of the study have led to the following recommendations.
Recommendation #1: Valley Christian High School and Gahr High
School have made good progress in the evaluation process of school
leaders. ABC Unified School District has gone as far as developing their own
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
leadership skills to guide them in the evaluation of leadership. However, the
professional standards for educational leaders have been developed with the
understanding that formal leadership in schools is complex and multi-faceted.
The development of standards have provided direction to school leaders and
has given school leaders a focus on what are perceived to be the framework
for effective leadership (Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium,
1996). Professional standards are somewhat new, with this recency, it
wasn’t surprising that administrators in this study were unaware of the
existence of professional standards for educational leaders. With this in
mind, District and School-site leaders must orientate themselves on the
professional standards for educational leaders. All schooling sectors should
take caution to inform all personnel of professional standards for school
leaders, and find ways to integrate the leadership standards into the
educational organization to ensure the school and its staff is knowledgeable.
Recommendation #2: Develop an in-service program to ensure that
all stakeholders are well informed on professional standards. Education
overall has allocated resources to the importance of student curriculum
standards and teacher training/evaluation standards. Leadership standards
are equally important in sustaining high achieving schools (Williams, 2001).
Recommendation #3: Implementation of leadership standards and
skills into administrative evaluations using the framework developed by the
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ISLLC or CPSEL will take school organizational support, from the top-down.
The evaluation system must be important to the educational organization and
must have the commitment of the governing board, council or committee.
Without the support of the governing board, council or committee and the
school leadership (administration), the evaluation will be superficial at best
(Webb & Norton, 2003). Unless the governance structure has clear policies
and procedures regarding the implementation of professional standards for
school leaders, there is a risk that implementation may not happen.
Recommendation #4: Administrative evaluations must include a wide
variety of input from stakeholders in the evaluation of school leaders. The
governance model currently in place at Valley Christian High School includes
many components of a best practice. Valley Christian High School includes
most of the school staff in the evaluation of their administrators. The
governance structure is inclusive in the leadership evaluation system.
Employees at the school site are given the opportunity to evaluate their
supervisor by means of the Administrative Image Questionnaire (AIQ). In
addition, Valley Christian has implemented a quasi-administrative committee
called the Administrative Council (AC) whose responsibility includes
reviewing school problems and crisis situations, as well as school-wide
concerns, schedules, budgets, and personnel issues. The minutes of the AC
meetings have an influence in the evaluation process. The minutes for the
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AC meetings are provided to the Executive Committee as a means of
oversight and a means to monitor the activities of the school administration.
One additional point identified in the evaluation process at Valley Christian
that was not noted or identified in the public sector is behavior.
Accountability in all areas of public education has come into question in
recent years. Public education would benefit from reviewing evaluation
systems similar to that at Valley Christian High School.
Suggested Further Research
Performance accountability in all areas of education, including school
administrators, has continued to top the list of education reforms across the
nation. Several education reform measures over the past few years have
focused primarily on assessing students and teachers (Peterson, 1985).
Almost all states require the evaluation of teachers, and about half have
required the formal evaluation of school principals (Webb & Norton, 2003).
These statistics continue to bring to light the importance of performance
assessment and evaluation systems of school personnel. Additional studies
in the area of evaluation for school administrators will help shed light on the
importance this process is providing with regards to effective services in
meeting student achievement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
From the analysis of the data, the findings, and the conclusions, come
the following suggestions for further research:
2. Conduct a study of administrator evaluations based on
the implementation of leadership standards into the
evaluation system designed by the ISLLC or CPSEL.
3. District and school-site administrators play a major role in
the evaluation of all school-site leaders, however district
and school-site administrators who perform evaluations
are one of many players as it relates to best practices in
personnel evaluations.
Kathy Frazier, with ABC Unified School District, has a
tremendous job in the evaluation of all principals in the district,
elementary, middle and secondary schools, including the district’s adult
school program. Clearly, her role in the administrative assessment
process made the difference between a model process and one that
lacks design to encourage and guide school leaders. Additional study
of the ways in which evaluation systems support and transform schools
should be conducted to learn more about these players.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Achilles C. M., Keedy J. L., & High R. M. ( 1999). The political world of the
principal: How principals get things done. In L. W. Hughes (Ed.), The
principal as leader (pp. 25-57). New York: Macmillan.
Anti-Defamation League. (2001). Religion in the public schools: Guidelines
for a growing and changing phenomenon. On-line: www.adl.org
Beck, L.G., (1994). Reclaiming educational administration as a caring
profession. New York: Teachers College Press.
Beck, L., & Murphy, J. (1993). Understanding the principalship: Metaphorical
themes. 1920-1990s. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders. New York: Harper College Press.
Betts, J.R., Rueben, K.S., & Danenberg, A. (2000). Egual resources, egual
outcomes? The distribution of school resources and student
achievement in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of
California.
Bizar, M. & Barr, R. (2001). School leadership in the times of urban reform.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates
Bloom, G. (1999, September/October). Sink or swim no more. Thrust for
Educational Leadership [On-line], 29 (1).
Available:http://www.acsa.org/publications/Leadership/Leadership
September 1999/bloom.html
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bracey, G.W. (1998, April). About those private school achievements. Phi
Delta Kappan 79 (8), 629.
Brainard, E.A. (1996). A hands-on guide to school program evaluation.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation
California School Leadership Academy at WestEd. (2001, May). California
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders. California
Department of Education.
Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation
prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. Hyattsville, MD: Carnegie
Forum on Education and the Economy.
Chemers, M. (1993). An integrative theory of leadership. In M. Chemers & R.
Ayman (eds.) Leadership theory and research: Perspective and
directions. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Chubb, J.E. & Moe, T.M., (1990). Politics, markets & America's schools.
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Convey, J. and Haney, R. (1997) Benchmarks of excellence: Effective
boards of catholic education. Washington, DC: National Catholic
Educational Association
Distance Learning Resource Network. (2001, October). Virtual schools:
Trends and issues. WestEd: Tom Clark.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating
schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dovre, Paul J. (2002). The future of religious colleges. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Williams B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Brent Davies, "Rethinking the educational context: A reengineering
approach," in Brent Davies and Linda Ellison (Eds.), (1997), School
leadership for the 21st. London, Routledge, 11-22.
Edlin, R.J. (1999). The cause of Christian education (3rc * ed.). Colorado
Springs, CO: Association of Christian Schools International.
EdSource. (2002, May). Is California on the right track?
EdSource. (2002, June). California student achievement: Multiple views of K-
12 progress.
Fitzpatrick, Joan B. (2002). Why Christian schools close: A model (Doctoral
dissertation, Regent University, 2002). UMI Dissertation Services.
Microfilm No. 3062346.
Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R., & Gall, J.P. (1996). Educational research: An
introduction (6th ed.) White Plains, N.Y.: Longman Publishers USA
Gamoran, A. (1996, October). Do magnet schools boost achievement?"
Educational Leadership 54. (2): 42-46.
Gardner, John W. (1990). On leadership. New York: The Free Press
Goldberg, M. (2001). Exceptional School Leaders. Alexandria, Virginia:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Gordon, H. (1999). The history and growth of vocational education in
America. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Good, T.L., & Braden, J.S. (2000). The great school debate. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hadderman, M., & Smith, S. (2002). Trends and issues: School choice. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management. University of Oregon.
Halsey, A.H., Lauder, H., Brown, P., Wells, A. (1997). Education: Culture,
economy, society. New York: Oxford Press.
Hentschke, G. & Davies, B., "Reconceptualising the nature of self-managing
schools," in Brent Davies and Linda Ellison (eds), (1997), School
leadership for the 21st century. London: Routledge, 23-35.
Higham, J. (1966). Strangers in the land: Patterns of American Nativism.
1860-1925. New York: Atheneum.
Hill, P.T., Pierce, L.C., & Guthrie, J.W. (1997). Reinventing public education:
How contracting can transform America's schools. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Houston, P. (2001, February). Superintendents for the 21st century: It's not
just a job, it's a calling [49 paragraphs]. Phi Delta Kappan [On-line], 82
(6). Available: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/khou0102.htm
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. (1996, November)
Standards for School Leaders. Council of Chief State School Officers.
Johnson, D.R. (2001, June). Privatization: Will it go away? School Business
Affairs. 26-28.
Johnson, S.M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new
superintendencv. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1988. The
personnel evaluation standards. Newbury Park: Corwin Press, Inc.
Keedy J. L. (1991). School improvement practices of successful high school
principals. Unpublished manuscript. The West Georgia Regional
Center for Teacher Education, West Carrollton.
Kemple, James J. (1997, November). Career Academies: Communities of
support for students and teachers: Further findings from a 10-site
evaluation. Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Available On-line:
http://www.mdrc.ora/reports/careerAcademies97/executivesummarv.html
Kozol, Johathan (1991). Savage Inequalities. New York: Crown Publishers,
Inc.
Lane, B. (1999, October). Choice matters: Policy alternatives and
implications for charter schools. (Elke Geiger & Susan Vincent).
Portland, Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Lange, Cheryl, and Kristin Kline Liu. "Homeschooling: Parents' Reasons for
Transfer and the Implications for Educational Policy." (Research
Report no. 29). Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota,
College of Education & Human Development, June 1999. 22 pages.
ED 433 595.
Lawson, M. and Choun, R. (1992). Directing Christian education: the role of
the Christian education specialist. Chicago: Moody Press
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Lines, Patricia M. "Homeschooling." ERIC Digest Series. No. 151. Eugene,
Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management,
September 2001. 2 pages.
Manno, Bruce V., and others. "How Charter Schools Are Different: Lessons
and Implications from a National Study." Phi Delta Kappan 79, 7
(March 1998):488-98.
MacPhail-Wilcox, B. & Forbes, R. (1990). Administrator evaluation handbook.
Bloomington, In: Phi Delta Kappa.
Manno, Bruno V., Finn, Chester E. Jr., Bierlein, Louann A., & Vanourek,
Gregg). (1998, March). How Charter Schools Are Different: Lessons
and Implications from a National Study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79^ (7) pp.
488-498.
Mondale, S., & Patton, S. (2001). School: The history of American public
education. Boston: Beacon Press.
Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Association of Boards of Catholic Education (1997). Benchmarks of
Excellence: Effective boards of Catholic education. Washington, DC:
National Catholic Educational Association.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Odden, A.R. (1995). Educational leadership for America's schools. San
Francisco: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the
entreprenurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Menlo Park, CA:
Addison-Wesley.
Peterson, T.K. (1985, June). Assessment and administrator gualitv. Paper
presented at the ECS/CDE Assessment and Policy Conference,
Boulder, CO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 269
456).
Porter, J.R., Cheney, G., & Kraemer, J. "Meaningful Credentials for Career
Academies." Principal Leadership 2. 1 (September 2001 ):36-40.
Rieseberg, Rhonda L.(1995). "Home Learning, Technology, and Tomorrow's
Workplace." TECHNOS 4 . p. 1.
Rogers, Donald B. (1989). Urban church education. Birmingham, Alabama:
Religious Education Press.
Russo, Charles J., and Gordon, William M. (December 1996). "Home
Schooling: The In-House Alternative." School Business Affairs 62,12.
Schnaiberg, L. (1999, December). Entrepreneurs hoping to do good, make
money. Education Week. 19. (14).
Schuller, David S. (1993). Rethinking Christian Education. St. Louis: Chalice
Press
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Scott, B,, & De Luna, A. (1994) Magnet schools: Pockets of excellence in a
sea of diversity. San Antonio, Texas: Intercultural Development
Research Association.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse: How is it different?
Why is it important? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school
improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Stufflebean, D.L. (Chair). (1988). The personnel evaluation standards: How
to assess systems for evaluating educators. The joint committee on
standards for educational evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Swanson, A., & King, R. (1997). School finance: Its economic and politics
(2 nd ed ). New York: Longman, 414.
Tyack, D.B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban
education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
U.S. Department of Education. (1987). Principal selection guide. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Warren, R. (1995). The purpose driven church. Grand Rapids:Zondervan
Publishing House.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Waters, Gisele A. (1998). Critical evaluation of education reform. Education
Policy Analysis Archives. 6 (20).
Wells, A.S. (1993). Time to choose: America at the crossroads of school
choice policy. New York: First Hill and Wang.
Webb, L.D. & Norton, M.S. (2003). Human resources administration:
Personnel issues and needs in education. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wendel, F., Hoke, F. & Joekel, R. (1996). Outstanding school administrators:
Their key to success. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Williams, H.J. (2001). Effective school leadership (Doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Irvine & University of California, Los Angeles.
(UMI Microform No. 3007014)
Wilson, Douglas (2003). The case for classical Christian education. Wheaton
Illinois: Good News Publishers.
Wise, A.E., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1985). Teacher evaluation and
professionalism. Educational Leadership. 42(4), 28-33.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A-1
California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders
Preamble
The administrator at a school site has numerous responsibilities that ultimately lead
to the improvement of the performance of all students in the school. By acquiring the
skills, attitudes and behaviors as outlined in the following professional standards for
educational leaders, students have the best opportunity to achieve the mission and
vision of the district and to meet the expectations of high standards for student
learning. Inherent in these standards is a strong commitment to cultural diversity
and the use of technology as a powerful tool.
Standard 1
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all
students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and
stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school
community.
• Facilitate the development of a shared vision for the achievement of all
students based upon the data from multiple measures of student learning
and relevant qualitative indicators.
Standard 2
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all
students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and
instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional
growth.
• Promote equity, fairness, and respect among all members of the school
community.
Standard 3
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all
students by ensuring management of the organization, operations, and
resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment
Standard 4
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all
students by collaborating with families and community members, responding
to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community
resources.
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Standard 5
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all
students by modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional
leadership capacity.
Standard 6
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all
students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political,
social, economic, legal, and cultural context
• View oneself as a leader of a team and also as a member of a larger team.
Standards 1-4 and 6 are from Council of Chief State School Officers, Interstate
School Leaders Licensure Consortium: Standards for School Leaders,, Washington,
D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers, 1996, pp. 10, 12, 14, 16, and 20.
Standard 5 is adapted from this same source, p. 18. Elements are from
representatives from the California School Leadership Academy, California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Association of California School
Administrators, California Department of Education, and California Association of
Professors of Educational Administration, California Professional Standards for
School Leaders. April 17, 2001 (draft)
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A-2
Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium Standards for School Leaders
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards for School
Leaders
Adopted by Full Consortium
November 2, 1996
Council of Chief State School Officers
State Education Assessment Center
Supported by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts
This is not a complete outline o f the ISLLC Standards
Standard 1
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success o f all students by
facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship o f a vision of
learning that is shared and supported by the school community.
The administrator has knowledge and understanding of:
* learning goals in a pluralistic society
* information sources, data collection, analysis strategies
* the principles o f developing and implementing strategic plans.
* effective communication
* systems theory
♦effective consensus-building and negotiation skills.
Standard 2
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success o f all students by
advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to
student learning and staff professional growth.
The administrator has knowledge and understanding of:
* student growth and development
* diversity and its meaning for educational programs
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
* applied learning theories
* adult learning and professional development
* applied motivational theories
* curriculum design, implementation, evaluation, and refinement
* the change process for systems, organizations ,and individuals
Standard 3
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success o f all students by
ensuring management o f the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and
effective learning environment.
The administrator has knowledge and understanding of:
* theories and models o f organizations and the principles of organizational
development
* principles and issues relating to fiscal operations o f school management
* operational procedures at the school and district level
* principles and issues relating to school facilities and use o f space
* principles and issues relating to school safety
* legal issues impacting school operations and security
* current technologies that support management
* human resources management and development functions
Standard 4
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success o f all students by
collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community
interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
The administrator has knowledge and understanding of:
* emerging issues and trends that potentially impact the school community
* community relations and marketing strategies and processes
* the conditions and dynamics o f the diverse school community
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
♦successful models o f school, family, business, government and higher education
partnerships
Standard 5
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success o f all students by
acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.
The administrator has knowledge and understanding of:
♦ the purpose o f education and the role o f leadership in modem society
♦ the values o f the diverse school community
♦professional codes o f ethics
♦ various ethical frameworks and perspectives on ethics
♦ The philosophy and history o f education
Dispositions
The administrator believes in, values, and is committed to:
♦ the ideal o f the common good
♦ accepting the consequences for upholding one's principles and actions
♦ the principles in the B ill o f Rights♦ using the influence o f one's office constructively and
productively in the service o f all students and their families
♦ the right o f every student to a free, quality education
♦ bringing ethical principles to the decision- making process
♦development o f a caring school community
♦ Subordinating one's own interest to the good o f the school community
Performances
The administrator:
♦ examines personal and professional values
♦ protects the rights and confidentiality o f students and staff
♦ demonstrates a personal and professional code o f ethics
♦demonstrates appreciation for and sensitivity to the diversity in the school community
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
*recognizes and respects the legitimate authority of others * serves as a role model
* examines and considers the prevailing values o f the diverse school community
* accepts responsibility for school operations
♦Applies laws and procedures fairly, wisely, and considerately
Standard 6
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success o f all students by
understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal,
and cultural context.
The administrator has knowledge and understanding of:
* principles o f representative governance that undergird the system o f American schools
♦models and strategies o f change and conflict resolution as applied to the larger political
,social, cultural and economic contexts o f schooling
♦The role o f public education in developing and renewing a democratic society and an
economically productive nation
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A-3
Annual School Report Card - Gahr High School
April 2002
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
/A n n u a l Schoolj
R e p o rt C a rd
April 2002
NittUi through Twelfth Grade
George Kambeitz, Principal
B o ard o f E d u catio n
Celia Spitzer, President
Robert Baldwin. Vice-President
Armin Reyes. Clerk
Mark Pulido. M ember.
Olympia Chen. Member
Cecy Groom, Member
David Montgomery. Member
D istrict A dm in istratio n
Dr. Ronald G. Barnes
Superintendent
Dr. Gary Smuts
Deputy Superintendent
Dr. Mary Sieu
Assistant Superintendent.
Academic Services
Mr. loan Nguyen
Chief Financial Officer.
Support Services
C on ten ts
• Principal's Message and School
Mission Statement
• Community & School Profile
• Discipline & Climate for team ing
• School Attendance
• Class Size
• instructional Minutes
• Minimum Days
• Textbooks & instructional Materials
• Student Achievement & Testing
• Academic Performance Index
• College Preparation
• Work Force Preparation
• School Facilities & Safety
• Counseling & Other Support Services
• Teacher Assignment
• Teacher Evaluation & Professional
Development
«Substitute Teachers
• Special Education
• Training & Curriculum Improvement
• Quality of Instruction & Leadership
• Expenditures & Services Funded
• Salary & Budget Comparison
• Contact Information
Statistical data in this Annual Report Curd
is boxed on October 2000 C JW ifXS* ditto pro
vided by the California DefXirtment o f Edit~
\ cation unless otherwise noted. /
ABC Unified School District
The Home o f D istinguished Schools
G a h r H ig h School
11111 Artesia Blvd.
Cerritos. CA 90703-2533
(562) 926-5566
\nr\r.abcnsdk/2.ca.us
Principal’s Message and School Mission Statement
The Richard Gahr High School faculty, staff, and school administration are a unified group of educators
who are committed to providing die young people of our community with a truly world class educa
tion. We share a common belief that "All Students Can and Will Learn". We strive to develop within
our students the highest academic, athletic, moral, and social standards. In doing so, our school staff
is committed to making a positive impact on the lives o f our students and our fellow staff members. It
is our goal to build a sense of unity among our staff, students, parents and our neighboring community'
while developing within each student an appreciation of the privileges and responsibilities of life. Our
teachers endeavor to actively engage students in learning individually and in teams to equip them for
future educational and career opportunities. Through the deliberate celebration of ethnic diversity at
Gahr High School our students learn to appreciate the uniqueness and diversity' of cultures and ensure
that each student and staff member is treated with dignity and respect.
As we strive to accomplish the goals we have stated above, we welcome any suggestions, ideas, or
comments you may have which you feel wall further enhance the learning opportunities that we provide
for our students. We encourage you to read this report card carefully and to become involved in our
PTSA. School Site Council, and (lie many other school support groups which help to create a positive
and effective culture on our school campus. Thank you for assisting Richard Gahr High School to
maintain a high level of educational excellence as we continue to strive to reach even higher as we
serve this and future generations of students.
Other
Community & School Profile Caucasian 1.2% Asian
The city of Cerritos is located in Southern California
on the border of Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
Incorporated in 1956. and originally called the City of
Dairy' Valley, this culturally and ethnically diverse city
of some 51.500 residents enjoys a mild climate with
an average daytime temperature of 74 degrees and 12
indies of annual rainfall.
Historically. Cerritos was first settled as a Spanish land
grant Rancho Los Cerritos by Manuel Nieto. In the early
part of the 20th century, the major industry of Cerritos
was apiculture, and its original name "City of Dairy*
Valley** reflects the importance of the dairy industry to the city. Now Cerritos is considered one o f the
Gateway Cities, a region that is a hub for technology', transportation, international trade and tourism,
and a leader in high-tedi manufacturing. Major employers in the area include Boeing. Rockwell, and
Northrop Grumman. In the city of Cerritos, employment converges in two regions: the Los Cerritos
Center and the Cerritos industrial Park, with major industries o f light manufacturing and assembly of
electronic and automotive parts. United Parcel Service is the city's largest employer.
Cerritos residents enjoy a park-like community with many residential neighborhoods of quality, afford
able housing. Cerritos has 24 parks and recreational facilities whid) offer swimming pools, fimess
equipment, playing courts, athletic fields, picnic areas, and community meeting rooms. The City of
Cerritos Recreation services offers many family-oriented events throughout the year including a Family
Kite Derby and Western Barbeque. Active community involvement is a vital part of the city with over
1 70 community organizations represented within the city. The Cerritos Center for the Performing Arts
is a world class center holding over 150 music, dance and theatrical performances each year.
The ABC Unified School District educates children In grades kindergarten through twelve from the
communities o f Lakewood. Artesia. Cerritos. Hawaiian Gardens, and portions of Norwalk. The dis
trict consists o f nineteen elementary schools, five middle schools, three comprehensive high schools,
a college prep 7-12 school, a continuation high school, infant/children centers, extended-day care, and
an adult school. The ABC Unified School District Is known throughout the State of California as a
African
American
13.0%
Filipino
10.6%
Hispanic
32.1%
2001-02
Enrollment
1,849
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
leader in educational planning and innovation. The district has received
state and national recognition for its schools, including California Dis
tinguished Schools and the National Blue Ribbon School awards. The
ABC Unified School District places strong emphasis on high achieve
ment for students and preparation for productive citizenship and is com
mitted to providing a strong instructional program for all students to
ensure excellence in education.
Gahr High School serves over 1.800 students in grades nine through
twelve on a traditional calendar system. Gahr High is dedicated to ensur
ing the academic success of every student and providing a safe and com
prehensive educational experience.
Discipline & Climate for Learning
Students at Gahr High are guided by specific rules and classroom expec
tations that promote respect, cooperation, courtesy, and acceptance of
others. The school's discipline philosophy promotes a safe school, a
warm, friendly classroom environment, and demonstrates that good dis
cipline is a solid foundation on which to build an effective school.
The goal of Gahr High’s discipline program is to provide students with
opportunities to leum self-discipline through a system o f consistent
rewards and consequences for their behavior. Parents and students are
informed o f discipline policies at the beginning of each school year
through classroom orientation and individual student handbooks.
A ttendance
Regular attendance at Gahr High is a necessary part of the learning
process and is critical to academic success. Attendance, tardy, and tru
ancy policies are clearly stated, consistently enforced, and consequences
fairly administered. Parents are advised o f their responsibilities, includ
ing proper notification of when and why students are absent. Indepen
dent study is available for students that require extended leaves from
school. The school monitors student attendance very closely and reports
excess unexcused absences to designated authorities. Punctuality and
promptness are desirable traits to develop. The students of Gahr High
are expected to be in their seats and ready for instruction at the desig
nated time.
The district annually provides a Student Conduct Code for each of its
sites which is supplemented by a set of behavioral standards developed
by Gahr High. The program's design establishes guidelines to provide
students with a meaningful, productive, and enjoyable school experi
ence. Appropriate behavior is encouraged through praise and motiva
tional incentives, as well as assertive discipline and conflict resolution
tools to further develop personal growth.
ABC Unified's School Attendance Review Board (SARB) is composed
of parents, representatives from the school district and members of the
community, including representatives from law enforcement, welfare,
probation and mental health. Students are referred to SARB when they
have persistent attendance and behavior problems in school, and when
the normal avenues of classroom, school and district counseling are not
effective. The members of the SARB. the referred students and their
parents or guardians meet regularly to work collaboratively to evaluate
the student's situation and recommend alternative solutions to alleviate
circumstances that contribute to specific truancy, attendance, or behav
ior problems. Gahr High expelled 16 students over the past three years:
expulsions occur only when required by law or when all other alterna
tives are exhausted.
^ 9
■
h e m p ? jHBOulSSI
KE ME f l H I■ n
m m
m m ins
E x tra c u rric u la r A ctivities
Students are encouraged to participate in the school's additional aca
demic and extracurricular activities that are an integral part of the edu
cational program. These schoolwide and classroom incentives promote
positive attitudes, encourage achievement, and aid in the prevention of
behavioral problems. Extracurricular activities, clubs, and programs
include:
Student Government • Color Guard
Band • ARTS (A Reason to Shine)
Pep Squad • CSF (CA Scholastic Federation)
Dnuna Productions • Multicultural Forum
Motivational Speakers • Korean Culture Club
Multi-Cultural Month • Japanese Culture Club
International Day • ASB (Associated Student Body)
Black History Month • City-sponsored Food Drives
Voices of Inspiration * Red Cross Blood Drives
Youth Alive • MUN (Model United Nations)
Key Club • ITS (International Thespian Society)
Interact Club ♦ Math & Science Club
Red Ribbon Week • Speech & Debate Club
Filipino Club • Spanish Club
Indian Club • OAAU (Organization of African
Dance Club American Unity)
French Club
The school's interscholastic athletic programs promote individual and
team-oriented achievement and self-esteem through school-sponsored
teams that compete with other Itigh schools in the area.
• Baseball • Track
• Basketball • Volleyball
► Football ♦ Tennis
• Golf • Wrestling
• Soccer
Certificates, ribbons, prizes, and various other awards are given to stu
dents at assemblies and special presentations throughout the school
year. Activities, honors, and programs include:
• Blue & Gold Award
• Golden State Recognition
• Student of the Month
• Principal's Honor Roll
• Talent Show
• Mr. & Mrs. Gahr High School Contest
H om ew ork
Gahr High feels homework is a fundamental part of die learning pro
cess that helps to develop basic academic and study skills as well
as promote student responsibility’ and self-discipline. Homework is
assigned on a regular basis for all grade levels and major subject areas.
Teachers determine the appropriate measure of homework for their
students. Students are expected to complete their homework assign
ments in a timely manner and to the best of their ability. Parents are
encouraged to provide a supportive environment for liomework activi
ties and to be responsible for reviewing homework assignments with
their student.
School Attendance
Student enrollment over the past three years at Gahr High has decreased
by 2.5%. Schoolwide enrollment at the beginning of the 2001-02
school year was 1.849 students. Gahr High is a school of choice and
accepts students from neighboring districts provided space is available
and class sizes do not exceed the school's maximum allowable class
size.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A-4
Bellflower Christian Schools - Organization Chart
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Appendix A-5
Leadership Evaluation Practices Survey
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Leadership Evaluation Practices Survey
1 . Leadership Skills: To what extent do you feel each of the following
leadership skills is important to effective sch o o l administration?
(Check box: Rank importance of each item-5 being very important & 1 being not important.)
5 4 3 2 1
a. Visionary
□ □ □ a a
b. Interdependence □ □ a □ □
c. Integrity
□ a □ □ □
d. Serving □ a □ a a
e. Change agent □ □ a □ a
f. community relations a □ a □ a
fi
Collegial a a □ □ a
ll. Inspiring a a a □ a
i. self inventor □ a □ a a
i-
culture creator a a a □ □
k. hope instiller □ a □ a a
I. Trustworthy a a a □ a
m. Creative
□ □ a a a
n. Dedicated a □ a □ a
0. risk taker □ □ □ a □
P -
goal oriented a a a □ a
q-
Learner □ a □ a a
r. Manager □ a a a a
s. Organized □ a a □ a
t. Systems thinker □ □ □ □ a
u. Communication a a □ □ a
V. Resourceful □ □ a □ a
w. Decisive a a □ a □
X. Flexible □ a □ a a
y -
Caring a □ □ a a
z. Values-driven a □ a a a
aa. Modeling a a a a a
bb. self-reflective a □ a a a
cc. instructional leader a □ □ a a
Curriculum a □ a a a
Assessment □ a a □ □
learning theories □ a a a a
instructional strategies a a □ □ a
adult learning a □ a □ □
dd. Persistent a a a a a
ee. capacity builder a a a a □
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Leadership Skills and the Evaluation Prpcess
2. To what extent do the following leadership skills occur in the
evaluation process of administrators within your district?
(Check box: Rank occurrence of each item with 5 being a great deal and 1 being very little.)
5 4 3 2 1
a. Visionary □ a □ a □
b . Interdependence a □ a a a
c. Integrity a a □ a □
d. Serving □ □ □ a □
e. Change agent □ a □ □ □
f. community relations a □ a □ □
g-
Collegial a a a a □
h. Inspiring □ □ a □ □
i. self inventor □ a a a a
i -
Culture creator □ a a a a
k. hope instiller a a □ □ □
I. Trustworthy □ □ a □ a
m. Creative a a a □ □
n. Dedicated □ a a □ □
0. risk taker a a a a □
P -
goal oriented a □ a a a
q-
Learner □ a □ □ □
r. Manager a □ □ □ a
s. Organized □ □ a a □
t. systems thinker a a □ a a
u. Communication □ a □ a a
V. Resourceful a □ □ □ □
w. Decisive □ □ a a a
X . Flexible a a □ a □
y-
Caring □ a □ □ a
z. Values-driven a a □ a □
aa. Modeling □ a a □ a
b b . self-reflective a □ □ a □
cc. instructional leader a □ a □ □
Curriculum □ a □ □ □
Assessment a a □ □ a
learning theories a □ □ a a
instructional strategies a a □ □ □
adult learning □ □ a □ a
dd. Persistent □ a □ a a
ee. capacity builder a □ □ a a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. Leadership Framework
The aforementioned leadership skills can be categorized into the leadership
areas of vision, culture and instruction, management, collaboration, ethics,
and politics/social context as outlined by the Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) in the development of administrator
standards. How much of your time is devoted to each of the following
leadership areas?
(Check box: Rank time spent in each area with S being a great deal and 1 being very little.)
5 4 3 2 1
a. Vision □ a □ a a
b. Culture and Instruction □ a □ a a
c. Management a □ a a a
d. Collaboration □ a □ a a
e. Ethics □ a a a □
f. Political/Social Context a a □ a a
4. To what extent do the leadership framework areas suggested by
the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) or
the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders
(CPSEL) occur in your evaluation process?
(Check box: Rank importance of each item with 5 being a great deal and 1 being very little.)
5 4 3 2 1
a. Vision □ □ □ □ □
b. Culture and Instruction □ a □ a a
c. Management a □ a a □
d. Collaboration a □ a a a
e. Ethics □ a □ a □
f. Political/Social Context a a □ a □
5. In your opinion, how effective is your district's evaluation
process in assessing leadership skills necessary for successful
school leadership?
(Check box: Rank effectiveness with 5 being very effective and 1 being not at all effective.)
5 4 3 2 1
□ □ □ □ □
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
WRITTEN RESPONSE QUESTIONNAIRE
6. Is your leadership evaluation assessment formative or
summatlve?
Formative Summative
7. Is there a follow-up plan to your evaluation assessment that
provides a well developed plan to strengthen your leadership
skills?
8. What elements of your leadership evaluation process do you
feel are effective?
9. In what ways could your leadership evaluation be improved?
10. What are some concerns or possible pitfalls of leadership
evaluation processes?
11. Do you feel your current organizations structure works and is
both appropriate and effective; work loads and responsibilities
are equitably distributed? Why or why not?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12. Do you feel it is beneficial to develop an evaluation process
around a leadership framework such as the one suggested by
the ISLLC or CPSEL?
13. Do you feel that an evaluation process, which concentrates on
leadership qualities, is more effective than one that focuses on
managerial duties? Why or why not?
14. Do you feel problems are generally identified and solutions
developed at the appropriate level in the organization and by the
appropriate people? Why or why not?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Leadership Evaluation Practices Research Survey
Organizational Effectiveness Review
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
(Rank agreement with each statement as follows.)
1 Strongly Disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither Agree or Disagree
4 Agree
5 Strongly Agree
15. My school district has developed and communicated a
clear and concise evaluation system.
16. Management/supervisory roles and responsibilities have
been clearly defined and communicated so that each
knows what the others are accountable for.
17. Administrative evaluation is used to measure my
capabilities, skills, and interests.
18. Our administrative evaluation system is generally timely,
effective, and efficient
19. Differences of opinion relating to administrative
evaluations are encouraged and listened to by the
appropriate staff.
20. We have an effective and efficient management
information system pertaining to administrative
evaluation goals and objectives.
21. The California Academic Performance Index (API) is only
a small part of administrative evaluations throughout the
organization.
22. Our evaluation policies, procedures, and practices are
equitably and consistently applied from year to year.
23. All of us, district and school site administrators are
committed to satisfying the needs and priorities of our
students and their families, who are our "customers”.
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24. California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders
are used in my evaluation.
25. School leadership performance can be evaluated.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Leadership Evaluation Practices Research Survey
Interview Questions
(Written Response When interview Not Possible)
Organization & Governance Structure
The following set of questions may be used for face-to-face interviews.
When interviews are not possible, the survey group may substitute brief
written responses.
In general, what is the process for administrator evaluations?
What are the principle forces that help to shape administrative
evaluations?
Is there any area of administrator evaluations that need to be
restructured?
4) Does the governance structure of the school factor into evaluation of
school leaders/or district leaders?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5)
Who do you think are the policy makers when it comes to identifying
administrator evaluation outcomes?
6) Question for private school leaders (administrators): Are public
school leaders held to a more stringent criterion in the evaluation
process because of the governance structure? (i.e., State standards,
the API index).
7) Question for public school leaders: Are private school leaders held to
a more stringent criterion in the evaluation process because of their
governance structure? (i.e., for religious schools, their affiliation with
the church or other religious organization?).
8) What are the biggest issues you and your administrative staff face
with regards to administrator evaluations? What would vour
counterpart sav in the other practice sector?
9) Are you familiar with California Professional Standards for School
Leaders? (Please circle one and respond)
If YES - Are they incorporated into administrator evaluations?
If N O - W h y are they not being used?
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10) A.) What criterion is used to hold school administrators
accountable?
b.) who is responsible for the development of the criteria?
11) The “ governance structure” is that structure which mandates who or
what should be carried out or performed. Who do you believe is
influencing the process of governance in your practice sector?
12) What is going well in the area of administrator evaluations in (public)
(private) schools? (What are the elements of things that are going
well)?
13) Question for private religious school leaders (administrators): What
are the religious aspects of your profession that must be considered?
Is it unique to this practice sector?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14) Why do you believe school administrators are evaluated?
Accountability or professional development may be the first thing that
comes to mind, but is there a greater purpose? What are they?
15) Does the governance structure need to make a directional change in
how it undertakes administrator evaluations? How so?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
COMMENTS
1 California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders
Y. Leadership Standards and Evaluation Process
Y. District Level Structure of Administrative Evaluations
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A-6a
Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District
Proposed Modification of
Principal Evaluation Form
and
Related Policy Modifications
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
P R O P O S E D M O D IF IC A T IO N O F
P R IN C IP A L E V A L U A T IO N F O R M
&
R E L A T E D P O L IC Y M O D IF IC A T IO N S
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PRINCIPAL EVALUATION TIMELINE
Principals shall be formally evaluated at least o nce each school year (July 1 - Ju ne 30). The
evaluator shall complete the Principal’s Evaluation an d related conference prior to Ju n e 30 e a c h
school year.
Principals who receive a rubric sco re of “N eeds improvement” or “Does not meet District
stan d ard s” in any one or more stand ard a re as shall have a program of remediation to help correct
any deficiencies followed by an additional evaluation in January. The evaluator shall notify the
Assistant Superintendents of Human R eso u rc es a n d Ed Services no later than the third week in
January regarding possible non-reelection of a principal.
Evaluation.mem
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
MANAGEMENTS RIGHTS - CERTIFICATED RR4S90
Page 1 of 4 Pages
I. Employee Rights in Matters Relating to Demotion an d Dismissal
A. Demotion
1 . The Board of Education may demote an y management employee
for specified reasons in accordance with provisions of the
Education Code a s found in Education Code Section 44932 or for
other cau ses on the recommendation of the Superintendent.
2. For the purpose of this rule an d regulation, demotion shall be
defined a s reassignment to another position with less compensation
and/br responsibility.
3. Action by the Board of Education to demote a management
employee for lack o f competency reasons shall be preceded by an
evaluation process that includes the following s te p s :
a) A written evaluation.
b) The affected management employee h a s the right to respond
in writing within fifteen (15) work d ays.
c) A program of remediation to help correct any noted
deficiencies.
d) If, after complying with the previous steps, the decision to
demote is made, the Superintendent shall recommend to the
Board of Education by March 1 5 of his/her intent to
demote.
4. Demotion for other reasons shall be preceded by an evaluation
process that includes the following step s :
a) A written evaluation.
b) The affected management employee h a s the right to respond
in writing within fifteen (15) work days.
c) A program of remediation to help correct any noted
deficiencies.
d) If, after complying with the previous steps, the decision to
demote is made, the Superintendent shall recommend to the
Board of Education by March 1 5 of his/her intent to
demote.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
MANAGEMENT RIGHTS - CERTIFICATED RR4590
Page 2 of 4 Pages
5. The notice of the intent to demote will include a written statement with
specific reasons for the demotion action and the legal rights of the
management employee. Upon written request to the Superintendent, the
management employee h a s a right to present his/her case orally in a closed
session with the Board of Education in accordance with the guidelines
established by the Board, or in writing before the Board of Education takes
final action.
6. Final decisions to demote shall be given by May 15 .
B. Dismissal
1 . The board of Education may d ism iss any management employee for
reasons specified in accordance with provisions of the Education Code a s
provided in Education Code Section 44932.
2. For the purpose of this rule and regulation, dism issal shall be defined as a
permanent separation from the District.
3. Dismissal proceedings for certificated management in permanent employee
status are those a s provided to any permanent teacher in accordance with
Education Code Sections 44932-44950. Dismissal proceedings for
certificated management in probationary employee status are those
provided to any probationary teacher in accordance with Education Code
Sections 44932-44950.
C. Demotion Due to a Reduction in Force or for Internal District Reorganization
1 . The Board of Education may demote any management employee with
satisfactory evaluations in accordance with provisions of the Education
Code a s found in Education Code Section 44951 on the recommendation
o f the Superintendent due to a reduction in force or for internal district
reorganization purposes.
2. For the purpose of this rule and regulation, demotion due to a reduction in
force or for internal district reorganization shall be defined a s any
occurrence in the district which causes a lesser number of management
employees than previously in a classification
3. When there is a possibility of an impending demotion, the affected
management employees shall be notified of the proposed action a s provided
in Education Code Section 44951.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
MANAGEMENT RIGHTS - CERTIFICATED RR4590
Page 3 of 4 Pages
4. Determination of management employee to be demoted shall be based on
the educational needs of the district. When all criteria appear equal,
seniority shall be the determining factor.
5. Upon written request to the Superintendent by the management employee,
statements of specific reasons for the impending demotion shall be
provided.
6. Upon written request to the Superintendent, the management employee h a s
a right to present his/her case orally in a closed s e s s io n with the Board of
Education in accordance with guidelines established by the Board, or in
writing before the Board of Education takes final action.
7. The action of the Board of Education is final.
D. Reinstatement
1. A management employee who h as been demoted because of reduction in
force or internal reorganization shall have the right to reinstatement to
management openings that may occur during the first twenty-four calendar
months following demotion, subject to the following conditions:
a) The Superintendent recommends reinstatement to the Board based
on the needs of the district.
b) The position opening is at the same or lower management
classification (defined a s the placement on the salary schedule) held
at the time of demotion.
c) The employee has received satisfactory evaluations in the interim.
d) The employee has remained a s an employee of the district.
E. Transfers
1. A transfer is any change from one position within the district to any other
position where there is no salary increase or decrease nor an y more or le s s
responsibility.
2. The Superintendent may transfer management employees.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
MANAGEMENT RIGHTS - CERTIFICATED RR4590
Page 4 of 4 Pages
•4 .
Voluntary transfers may be requested by an y management employee, for
which the employee is properly certificated providing:
a) There is a vacancy.
b) The request for voluntary transfer shall be related to the educational
welfare of students and/or district operations.
c) The request for transfer shall be supported by valid personal and/or
professional reasons.
d) The request for voluntary transfer will not be accepted prior to one
complete year of district service in any given district position.
e) One transfer at least every five (5) years is generally regarded a s
desirable for building level administrators and co-administrators.
Involuntary transfers may be initiated by the Superintendent based on the
following:
a) Educational needs of the district.
b) Opportunity for professional growth.
c) Leadership exhibited.
d) Personal and professional relationships.
e) Community needs.
f) Management employee welfare.
g) One transfer at least every five (5) years is generally regarded a s
desirable for building level administrators and co-administrators.
Requests for transfer shall be submitted in writing by the management
employee at the time of any known vacancy. The request shall be held
during the period of decision for the position. The management employee
sh all be notified in writing of the decision within fifteen (15) work d a y s
from the time a decision is m ade.
Reference: EC 44422, 44426-27,
44660, 44836-37, 44932-56,
45101,45113,45123
Norwalk - La Mirada Unified School District
Rules and Regulations
Approved by the Superintendent
February 19,1991
■ ‘ m ended: Ju n e 5,1995
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
M ANAGEMENT RIGHTS — CERTIFICATED 4590
The Board of Education of the Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School D is tric t
acknowledges and supports the worth of a ll certificated management
employees. Without the support and reasonable judgment o f a ll adminis
trators in th e ir respective duties, the education of students within the
d is tric t would s u ffe r irreparable harm. In keeping with th is philosophy,
the Superintendent is delegated the responsibility of implementing the
rules and regulations pertaining to transfers, demotions, dismissals and
reinstatement o f adm inistrative personnel.
The Board o f Education thus seeks to insure a ll administrators that
th eir rights shall not be violated.
Reference: EC 44422, 44426-27 Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School
44660, 44836-37, D is tric t Policies and Bylaws
44932-56, 45101 ,
45113, 45123
Adopted February 19, 1981
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
NORWALK - LA MIRADA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
P R IN C IP A L E V A L U A T IO N F O R M
(DRAFT SUGGESTION SAMPLE)
Principal Data:
Name;_________________________________________School:
Evaluation D ate:_____________________ Evaluation Period:
OVERALL EVALUATION:
Check the statement which best describes the principal’s OVERALL PERFORMANCE during the evaluation period.
MEETS District standards. (31:____ __NEEDS improvement^'): DOES NOT meet District standards.(1)
■ ' 1 ' " '
Overall Comments
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EVALUATION, ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL RR4530
Page 1 of 2 Pages
In order to maintain and improve the quality of administrative performance and to set standards by which
individual performance can be appraised, an evaluation process is established. This process shall include,
but not necessarily be limited to, the following criteria:
1.0 Job Description and Standards of Performance
A job description will be developed for every management position in the District. As a part of
that job description, standards of performance (performance indicators) will also be developed for
each area of responsibility.
2.0 Goals and Objectives
Every member of the management team shall develop Goals and Objectives. The plan shall
specifically enumerate those activities the individual plan is to accomplish during the period the
plan is to cover.
3.0 Process of Evaluation
3.1 Development of Goals and Objectives
Each person to be evaluated shall develop his/her individual Goals and Objectives. This
plan shall include activities generated from previous evaluations as well as activities
developed as a result of other needs assessment techniques.
3.2 Agreement of Goals and Objectives
Goals and Objectives shall be submitted and approved by the evaluator.
3.3 Final Evaluation
The evaluator will prepare a written final evaluation that may include commendations
and recommendations as well as an overall summary. Copies of this document will be
available for signature at the final evaluation meeting: (1) retained by evaluatee, (2)
retained by evaluator, and (3) forwarded to Personnel for filing. The signature of die
evaluatee does not show agreement with the evaluation but only that he/she has received
a copy.
The evaluatee may submit a written response to the evaluator’s statement with 15 days
prior to the placement of the evaluation in his/her official personnel file. The response
will be attached to the evaluation and retained in the District Personnel Office.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EVALUATION, ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL RR4530
Page 2 of 2 Pages
3.4 The Evaluation Conference
3.5 At the conclusion of the evaluation period, the evaluator and the evaluatee shall meet for
an evaluation conference.
The purpose of this Evaluation Conference is to discuss the final evaluation and if
necessary discuss the Action Plan.
4.0 Time Schedules
In order to provide for an orderly process, the following time line is established. The evaluation
will cover die time period of January July 1 through Deoember June 30 of each calendar school
year. Should it be necessary, the evaluator shall complete an additional evaluation bv the
third week In January when the evaluatee has received one or more ratings of “Does not
meet District Standards” or “Needs Improvement” on the most recent evaluation.
4r t Fin nl-E valuation Thc-final evaluatlon will occur the
second- week in January.
Reference: California Education Code
Sections: 44660,44932-56
Norwalk - La Mirada Unified School District
Rules & Regulations
Adopted: April 17,1972
Amended: January 18,1982
Amended: August 1,1994 .
Amended: November XXXXX
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
STANDARD 1
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by facilitating the development,
articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.
• Facilitate the development of a shared vision for the achievement of all students based upon data from multiple
measures of student learning and relevant qualitative indicators.
• Communicate and implement the shared vision so that the entire school community understands and acts on the
mission o f the school as a standards-based educational system.
• Leverage and marshal sufficient resources to implement and attain the vision for all students and subgroups of
students.
• Identify and address any barriers to accomplishing the vision.
• Shape school programs, plans, and activities to ensure integration, articulation, and consistency with the vision.
• Use the influence of diversity to improve teaching and learning.
RUBRIC
MEETS District standards. f3i; NEEDS improvement.(2); DOES NOT meet District standards/11
Objective:
Status:
Next Steps:
Comments:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
STANDARD 2
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by advocating,
sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
• Create an accountability system of teaching and learning based on student learning standards.
• Utilize multiple assessment measures to evaluate student learning to drive an ongoing process of inquiry focused on
improving the learning of all students and all subgroups of students.
• Shape a culture where high expectations for all students and for all subgroups of students is the core purpose.
• Guide and support the long-term professional development of all staff consistent with the ongoing effort to improve
the learning of all students relative to the content standards.
• Promote equity, fairness, and respect among all members of the school community.
• Provide opportunities for all members of the school community shared responsibility.
• Facilitate the use of appropriate learning materials and learning strategies which include the following:
Students as active learners, a variety of appropriate materials and strategies, the use of reflection and inquiry, an
emphasis on quality versus quantity, and appropriate and effective technology.
RUBRIC
District standards.(3); NEEDS improvement.(21: DOES NOT meet District standards.I’ll
Objective:
Status:
Next Steps:
Comments:
MEETS
nurturing, and
1
nd I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
STANDARD 3
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes success of all students by ensuring management of the
organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, learning environment.
• Monitor and evaluate the programs and staff at the site.
•: Establish school structures, patterns, and processes that support student learning.
• Manage legal and contractual agreements and records in ways that foster a professional work environment and
secure privacy and confidentiality for all students and staff.
• Align fiscal, human and material resources to support the learning of all students and all groups of students.
• Sustain a safe, efficient, clean, well-maintained, and productive school environment that nurtures student learning
and supports the professional growth of teachers and support staff.
• Utilize the principles of systems management, organizational development, problem solving, and decision
making techniques fairly and effectively.
• Utilize effective and nurturing practices in establishing student behavior management systems.
_ MEETS District standards. (3);
RUBRIC
_ NEEDS improvement. (2); DOES NOT meet District standards.U1
Objective:
Status:
Next Steps:
Comments:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
STANDARD 4
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and
community members responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
• Incorporate information about family and community expectations into school decision making and activities.
• Recognize the goals and aspirations of diverse family and community groups.
• Treat diverse community stakeholder groups with fairness and with respect.
• Support the equitable success o f all students and all subgroups o f students through the mobilization and leveraging of
community support services.
• Strengthen the school through the establishment of community, business, institutional, and civic partnerships.
• Communicate information about die school on a regular and predictable basis through a variety of media and modes.
RUBRIC
MEETS District standards.^!: NEEDS improvement.^!: DOES NOT MEET district standards/1 1
Objective:
Status:
Next Steps:
Comments:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
STANDARD 5
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by modeling a personal code of ethics
and developing professional leadership capacity.
• Demonstrate skills in decision making problem solving, change management, planning, conflict management and
evaluation.
• Model personal and professional ethics, integrity, justice, and fairness and expect the same behaviors from otheis.
• Make and communicate decisions based upon relevant data and research about effective teaching and learning,
leadership, management practices, and equity.
• Reflect on personal leadership practices and recognize their impact and influence on the performance of others.
• Encourage and inspire others to higher levels of performance, commitment, and motivation.
• Sustain personal motivation, commitment, energy, and health by balancing professional and personal responsibilities.
• Engage in professional and personal development
• Demonstrate knowledge o f the curriculum and the ability to integrate and articulate programs throughout the grades.
• Use the influence of the office to enhance the educational program rather than for personal gain.
• Protect; the rights and confidentiality of students and staff.
RUBRIC
_ MEETS District standards,(3); NEEDS improvement^!: DOES NOT meet District standards.!!!
Objectives:
Status:
Next Steps:
Comments:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
STANDARD 6
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to and
influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
• View oneself as a leader o f a team and also as a member of a larger team.
• Ensure that the school operates consistently within the parameters of federal, state, and local laws, policies,
regulations, and statutory requirements.
• Generate support for the school by two-way communication with key decision makers in the school community.
• Work with the governing board and District and local leaders to influence policies that benefits students and supports
the improvement of teaching and learning.
• Influence and support public policies that ensure the equitable distribution of resources, and support for all the
subgroups of students.
• Open the school to the public and welcome and facilitate constructive conversations about how to improve student
learning and achievement
RUBRIC
MEETS District standards.(3); NEEDS improvement^!: DOES NOT meet District standards.(l)
Objective:
Status:
Next Steps:
Comments:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SIGNATURE PAGE
Name:___________________________________________ ; ____________Evaluator Date:.
Length of time as Supervisor to employee:________________________
Please be advised that according to Education Code Section 44031 you may prepare a response which will be attached to this
document. This document will be placed in your personnel file after ten days. Your signature on this document does not
indicate that you agree with this but rather that you read and have received a copy of it.
SIGNATURE/EMPLOYEE COMMENTS
Principal Signature Evaluator Signature
PRINCIPAL COMMENTS ON EVALUATION:
OTHER COMMENTS/SIGNATURES:
Assistant Superintendent Comments:
Signature
Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District
12820 Pioneer Boulevard
Norw alk, C A 90650-2894
Revised: 10/10/02
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A-6b
Research Study Letter to
Valley Christian and ABC Unified School District
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
January 9, 2003
Dr. Mary Sieu
Assistant Superintendent
ABC Unified School District
16700 Norwalk Blvd
Cerritos, CA 90703
Dear Dr. Mary Sieu,
I want to thank you for meeting with me last month regarding the research study on
administrative evaluation systems. I believe this joint project with ABC U.S.D. and
Valley Christian High School will benefit many.
I want to touch base with you regarding the progress I’m making with my USC
dissertation study on administrator evaluations since our first meeting. I spoke with
Kathy Frazier last week regarding the participation of ABC Unified School District in
my U.S.C. research study on School Administrator Evaluation Systems. She
asked that I forward a copy of the research abstract and research questions to your
office for review. I have not developed the abstract, however, I have enclosed a
brief overview of the study, including the following;
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions (Questions to be Answered)
Importance of the Study
Limitations
Instrumentations (Survey design)
For your review, I have enclosed the survey and interview questions that I would
be gathering data from.
I look forward to working with you and the district on this important study on
Administrator Evaluation Systems. If you have any questions please don’t hesitate
to call me at (949) 448-0500. I would be happy to schedule time to meet with you
to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
John J. Smith
USC Graduate Student
cc. Kathy Frazier
160
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
January 9, 2003
Mr. Kevin Kaemingk, Principal
Valley Christian High School
Cerritos, CA 90703
Dear Mr. Kaemingk,
I want to thank you for meeting with me last month regarding the research study on
administrative evaluation systems. I believe this joint project with ABC U.S.D. and
Valley Christian High School will benefit many.
I want to touch base with you regarding the progress I’m making with my USC
dissertation study on administrator evaluations since our first meeting.
I am forwarding a copy of the research questions to your office for review. I have
enclosed a brief overview of the study, including the following;
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions (Questions to be Answered)
Importance of the Study
Limitations
Instrumentations (Survey design)
I am waiting for my proposal to be approved by my committee and then University
IRB approval as well. Once I have received the go-ahead I will be in touch.
I look forward to working with you and the district on this important study on
Administrator Evaluation Systems. If you have any questions please don’t hesitate
to call me at (949) 448-0500. I would be happy to schedule time to meet with you
to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
John J. Smith
USC Graduate Student
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A-7
Bellflower Christian Schools
Description of Duties
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SECTION III
ADMINISTRATION
SUPERINTENDENT AS EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR THE BOARD
The administration of the school system in all of its aspects shall be delegated to the Superintendent, who
shall carry out his administrative and supervisory functions in accord with the policies adopted by the Board, the
laws of the State of California, and the Articles of Incorporation and Amended By-laws of the Bellflower Christian
Society.
PRINCIPALS
Principals shall act as the administrative officers for their own school. They shall be responsible for and
shall have authority over the actions of students, professional and non-professional employees, visitors, and persons
hired to perform tasks while they are engaged in work in or about the schools.
All principals shall keep the Superintendent informed of activities in their schools by whatever means the
Superintendent deems appropriate.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION
Administrative leadership and other organizational processes within the system will be such as to ensure a
high probability that in all personnel interactions and in all relationships within the organization, each staff
member, in the light of his Christian background, values, desires, and expectations, will view his experience at
Bellflower Christian as supportive and one which builds and maintains each one's sense of personal worth and
importance. It is understood that the above administrative principle be carried out in the light of Scripture and the
policies set forth by the Board of Directors.
A second principle of administrative leadership involves the use of group input in the decision-making
processes. Staff members in a particular group or building who are affected by the outcome of a decision will be
involved in it. Communication must be dear and adequately understood. And although the group is involved in
the process, the person in charge is accountable for all dedsions, for their execution, and for the results.
The third prindple deals with the use of performance goals in order to improve the effectiveness of the
organization. This is the means by which staff members can help set the high-level goals, which the satisfadion of
their own needs requires.
If the administration performs according to the above prindples, the Bellflower Christian School system will
be a Christian community which displays group loyalty, higher performance, greater cooperation, more assistance
to the staff, less feeling of unreasonable pressure, more favorable attitudes toward the administration, and high
motivation within the classroom.
THE SUPERINTENDENT
As chief administrator of the school, the Superintendent shall be administratively responsible for the school
as a whole. The following duties are arbitrarily categorized into eight groups: (1) Superintendent - Board
Relationships; (2) Students; (3) Staff; (4) Program (curriculum); (5) Building; (6) Finance; (7) Organization; (8)
Public Relations.
Revised May 1999
163
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. Superintendent - Board Relationships
a. The superintendent shall serve as the executive officer of the Board and attend all meetings 01
the Board. He shall be responsible for the development of administrative principles and
procedures of implementing Board policies. The Board makes policy (legislative function); the
superintendent carries out the policy (executive function). He shall serve as a full member on
the Education Committee, Marketing and Promotion Committee, and Admissions Committee.
The superintendent shall serve on the Finance and Property & Bus Committee in an advisory
capacity and shall serve on other committees when requested.
b. He shall provide a continuous appraisal of all policies originating with the Board.
c. He shall advise the Board of problems arising which are not covered by policy statements and of
any irregularities developing in the administration of policy.
d. He shall make all personnel recommendations. Board members shall not accept individual
requests by applicants for employment or from employees for promotion. Advance
commitments by individual Board members shall never be made. When a recommendation for
appointment is not acceptable to the Board, the superintendent shall be required to submit the
name of another applicant.
e. He shall perform such other duties as may be determined by the Board.
2. Students (See Section V)
The Superintendent shall:
a. Coordinate and supervise the admission and assigning of students in the various buildings.
b. Supervise the evaluation of students in all buildings.
c. Supervise the keeping of complete records in all buildings.
d. Arrange for transportation of students.
e. Provide for the safety of students.
f. Monitor compliance with government requirements.
3. Staff (See Section IV)
The Superintendent shall;
a. Directly supervise and be responsible for the work of the Director of Business Operations and
the principals and present to the Executive Committee an annual written evaluation prior to
contract time.
b. Delegate to the principals or other staff members, in conjunction with the principals, such tasks
as may be assigned to him.
c. Be responsible for the recruitment and selection of new personnel.
Revised May 1999
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
d. Supervise the evaluation of faculty members, visiting the classrooms of (1) new personnel, (2)
those eligible for continuing contract, and (3) those whose continued employment is seriously
questioned. Such evaluation and observation should be done in concert with that of the
respective principals and should not replace the normal duties of the principals. (Appendix C)
e. Make all recommendations to the Education Committee and the Board regarding continued
employment, after full consultation with the respective principals.
f. Serve as chairman of (1) the Administrators Council, (2) school-wide staff meetings, and (3)
appointed designated school-wide committees. (Appendix D)
g. Recommend to the appropriate committee of the Board adequate remuneration for all
employees.
h. Direct orientation and in-service programs of all employees. Coordinate all school-wide
programs, commencement exercises, etc.
i. Assign personnel to specific duties.
j. Direct the supervision and evaluation of classified personnel.
k. Counsel and advise the principals on all extraordinary matters of mutual concern, making all
major decisions after consultation.
I. Be responsible for the supervision of all professional personnel through the appropriate
principals.
4. Program (Curriculum) (See Section IX)
The Superintendent shall:
a. Coordinate the school-wide curricular program.
b. Require a written curriculum that is revised and improved after proper evaluation on a
continuing basis. Core subjects are reviewed on a 5-year basis.
c. Provide materials to carry out the curriculum goals.
d. Approve the purchase of all program supplies.
e. Act as a stimulant to administrators and teachers to produce research and experimentation in the
school to improve curriculum and services.
f. Be responsible for the administration of any government aid projects for the school and act as
the school's official representative.
5. Building (See Section VII)
The Superintendent shall:
a. Supervise the physical operations and maintenance of all properties.
Revised May 1999
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
b. Safeguard the property by keeping proper records and documents.
c. Recommend property needs to the Long-Range Planning Committee.
d. Be responsible for the construction and/or rehabilitation of all buildings in coordination with the
principals, the Long Range Planning Committee and Property and Bus Committee.
6. Finance (See Section VI)
The Superintendent shall:
a. Recommend to the Finance Committee an estimate of receipts and expenditures for the ensuing
fiscal year and administer the budget as adopted.
b. Be directly responsible for all monies of the General and Capital Funds - receipts and
expenditures.
c. Supervise all business office operations.
7. Organization
The Superintendent shall:
a. Be responsible for the organizational structure of the Bellflower Christian School system as
defined by the Executive Committee.
b. Evaluate annually the organization of the school in conjunction with the other administrators.
c. Coordinate the activities of and act as Chairman of the administrative council.
8. Public Relations (See Section V)
The Superintendent shall:
a. Be responsible for all school-wide correspondence and relationships.
b. Interpret to the citizens of the school constituency the purposes, the accomplishments, problems,
and needs of the school through the available media.
c. Inform all personnel of the school of Board policy and administrative regulations.
d. Foster a good relationship between the school and the following:
1) Other Christian Schools, Christian Schools International, and other professional
organizations connected with Christian education.
2) The local churches from which the students come. (See 5 - V, 5 - VI)
3) The public and/or other types of schools in the community.
Revised May 1999
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
b. Work year description:
1) Superintendent and principals - 48 weeks
2) Administrative Assistants: assigned annually and for two additional contract weeks, one
prior to the start of school and one week following graduation.
c. All time off will be scheduled and approved by the superintendent.
d. Time off will not ordinarily be taken when school is in session.
e. Under ordinary circumstances, all administrators shall be offered contracts not later than
February 15.
f. Holidays are designated on the school calendar. Administrators work on days that office is open
but school closed.
2. Salary and Other Benefits for Administrators
a. The amount of an administrator’s salary is based on years of administrative experience and
educational training. An administrator shall receive a base pay plus a percentage. The base pay
is that figure on the teachers' salary schedule that indicates what an administrator would receive
if he were a teacher.
b. All special items and benefits of the teachers' salary schedule are included in the base pay of the
administrator where applicable.
c. Computation of Salary
An administrator's salary shall be computed based on CSI guidelines for administrator salaries.
3. Travel Expenses
Administrators will be reimbursed for travel expenses incurred in connection with the performance of
their duties, with prior approval of Superintendent and/or Board of Directors.
GUIDELINES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATION (See Appendix C)
Administrative leadership will be such as to ensure a high probability that in all personnel interactions and in
all relationships within this school system, each staff member, in light of his/her background, values, desires, and
expectations, will view his experience at the Bellflower Christian School as supportive and one which builds and
maintains each person's sense of personal worth and importance before God, the students, and the constituency. It
is understood that this leadership is to be carried out according to the policies set forth by the Board of Directors.
Each administrator will be asked annually, at the beginning of the school year, to submit a list of personal
goals and objectives. These will be stated in such a way that they can be measured and attained, and will include a
completion date.
The goals written by each administrator will be reviewed bi-annually by the superintendent and by the
Executive Committee of the Board. An opportunity will be given to amend this list when it is deemed appropriate,
either by the administration or by the Executive Committee.
Revised May 1999
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5. Lead and supervise Business Staff.
. a. Oversee the computer systems and their software relating to Business for the entire campus.
b. Oversee the maintenance and purchasing of all major office equipment.
c. Supervise and evaluate all business staff.
d. Conduct weekly Business Office staff meetings and periodic meetings with other Business staff.
6. Supervise the physical operations and maintenance of all properties.
a. Safeguard the property by keeping proper records and documents.
b. Recommend property needs to the Bus and Property Committee and/or the Long Range Planning
Committee.
c. Be responsible for the construction and/or rehabilitation of all buildings, in coordination with the principals,
the Maintenance Supervisor, the Long Range Planning Committee, and the Property and Bus Committee.
d. Supervise and evaluate the B.C. S. Maintenance Supervisor.
7. Maintain an informed, cohesive, and well-run department, following approved policies and procedures.
8. Serve on the Finance Committee of the Board and provide assistance to any other Board committee as by the
Board of Directors or the Superintendent.
THE PRINCIPALS
Principals shall be responsible for the school(s) he supervises. The following duties are arbitrarily
categorized into eight groups:
1. Relationships
a. Report directly to the superintendent and work in cooperation with the superintendent and other
administrators in all ways possible.
b. Administer the school in conformity with the Articles of Incorporation of the school society,
with the adopted policies of the Board, with the rules and regulations of the State Board of
Education, and with state and federal law.
c. Be responsible to the superintendent and the Board for the organization and administration of the
educational program within his school(s) and shall meet with the Board at their regular
educational meetings. Keep the superintendent informed as to the condition and quality of the
educational program in his school(s).
e. Serve on the Education Committee of the Board.
f. Serve as a member of the Administrators Council.
g. Perform other duties as may be determined by the superintendent.
Revised May 1999
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I
2. Students
a. Be responsible for implementing the Admissions Policy as defined by the Board, as well as the
assignment and retention and/or promotion of students.
b. Be responsible for organizing playgrounds, noon hour and other intermission periods in the best
interest of the students.
c. Be responsible for providing proper evaluation of students in his school(s).
d. Safeguard and maintain health and educational records of each student in his school(s).
e. Be responsible for proper instruction, discipline, attitudes and behavior in his buildings and at
school functions.
3. Staff
a. Develop programs of orientation and of in-service education for instructional and
non-instructional staff members within his schools(s).
b. Submit lists of personnel needs for regular, temporary, and substitute staff positions, and in
conjunction with the superintendent and other administrators, assist in the screening and
selection of candidates.
c. Be responsible for the assignment of equitable loads to and supervision of, the instructional and
non-instructional staff members within his school(s).
d. Administer an active evaluation program of all personnel within his schools(s). (See IV -13)
e. Supervise all personnel within his school(s).
f. Work with the other administrators and take part in the making of all major administrative
decisions.
4. Program (Curriculum)
a. Be responsible for the development of the curriculum, and its adaptation to the needs, interests,
and abilities of the students.
b. Appraise the effectiveness of all courses, instructional materials, and physical facilities.
c. Obtain approval from the superintendent in the purchase of supplies, textbooks, equipment, and
all other materials.
d. Act as a stimulant to teachers to try out new techniques and programs, and to strive for
self-improvement.
5. Building and Maintenance
a. Determined by the Superintendent and direction by the Board.
169
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Administrative Image Questionnaire, made up of twenty-six items related to successful leadership skills
and procedures, will be given at least every two years to the staff to complete. The Board will also have the oppor
tunity of completing an AIQ on the Superintendent.
The Administrative Council reviews problems and crisis situations as well as school-wide concerns,
schedules, budgets, and personnel issues. The minutes of these meetings are provided to the Education Committee
as a means of monitoring the activities of the administration.
FACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEES
The superintendent and principals shall, at their own discretion, appoint or cause to have elected committees
to assist them in their various deliberations. Each such committee shall act in an advisory capacity to the
administrative officer responsible for the area in which the committee was elected to operate, or to the
administrative officer by whom it was appointed.
ADVISORY COMMITTEES MEETING WITH BOARD
The Board or one of its committees may request to meet with a faculty advisory committee, curriculum
committee, or specially appointed committee.
These same faculty committees may also request to meet with one of the Board committees under the
advisement of the administration. The administrator shall be informed of any or all such type meetings but shall not
be in attendance at such meetings.
BOARD ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Purpose: The committees were formed a few years ago for the purpose of establishing a two way communication
between staff and board members, creating the opportunity to share various issues of concern as well as positive
comments.
Format: Four committees will be formed at the beginning of each school year. One for each campus, Elementary,
Middle School, and High School, plus an additional committee for Classified. Three staff representatives will be
elected by their peers and three board members will be appointed to each committee. Two meetings should be
scheduled per year, one in the fall and one in the spring.
Responsibilities of the Staff Rep:
1. The representative will be elected by his peers. Staff representatives will serve on a rotating basis to
ensure continuity as well as inclusiveness.
2. The representative should give an opportunity for input by their fellow staff members before the BAC
meeting.
3. The feelings of the staff should then be communicated to the board members at the meeting.
4. Personnel related issues should not be aired at the meeting, but discussed with the site administrator.
Revised September 2001
170
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A-8
ABC Unified School District Policy
Evaluation of Management Personnel
(School Administrators)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABC Unified School District
TO: Management Employees
FROM: Kay Jones, Director-Human Resources
DATE: September 26,2002
SUBJECT: TIMETABLE FOR EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT
PERSONNEL FOR THE 2002-2003 SCHOOL YEAR AND GUIDELINES
FOR EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR MANAGEMENT
PERSONNEL
Certificated management employees need to be evaluated every other year.
New certificated management employees need to be evaluated for two years
and pending satisfactory evaluations, will then be evaluated every two years.
The supervisor has the option to require a yearly evaluation.
The School/Division Plan along with the Administrative Personal
Performance Plan is a good way to establish mutual objectives on which the
evaluation can occur. Other bases for developing objectives are appropriate
as well (e.g. last years evaluation, district goals).
For your information, a copy o f Board Regulation 4315.1 (revised 10/18/94)
regarding the evaluation o f certificated management personnel is attached.
Also included is the Administrative Personal Performance Plan form. Please
make additional copies as needed.
Please note that die pre-evaluation conference on die Personal Performance
Plan must be signed and dated by October 15, 2002. The final evaluation
must be in narrative form, dated, signed, and submitted to Human Resources
no later than June 5,2003.
172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PERSONNEL - CERTIFICATED MANAGEMENT
Evaluation o f Certificated Management Personnel
Frequency of Evaluation: Certificated management employees shall be evaluated at
every other year. New certificated management employees will be evaluated annually
for two years and pending satisfactory evaluations, will then be evaluated every two
years. The supervisor has the option to require a yearly evaluation.
Evaluator: The evaluator shall be the supervisor o f the management employee.
Evaluator shall, by October 15, hold one or more meetings with the management
employee to review the procedures for setting standards, techniques for assessment,
and to review the evaluation calendar for tire year.
Setting Standards o f Performance: Prior to October 15 o f each year o f evaluation,
each management employee and his/her evaluator shall meet in an initial evaluation
conference to draft the mutually determined standards to be achieved and the
techniques for assessing die achievement o f the standards. The date o f the conference
will begin the period o f monitoring and followup conferences which may be
necessary to die evaluation process.
The following sections o f die Certificated Employee Professional Evaluation Report
form shall be completed during die initial conference:
1. Mutually determined standards o f expected progress.
2. Duties and responsibilities.
3. Mutual agreement on proper management and organization.
4. Standards for immediate supervisor to establish conditions necessary for
fulfillment of listed standards.
The standards established shall be subject to review at any time during the school
year by either the management employee or evaluator. Nothing herein shall preclude
die evaluator from proposing and/or requiring additional standards for an evaluatee
subsequent to initial evaluation conference.
The techniques to be used for assessing the achievement o f die mutually determined
standards shall be listed on die professional evaluation report form for each area to be
evaluated.
A good-faith effort will be made to reach mutual agreement on the above-mentioned
standards, objectives, duties, techniques and processes.
If a management employee and evaluator cannot reach mutual agreement on the
standards or assessment methods, the evaluator shall determine the standards and
assessment methods. The management employee may note for the record and attach
to die final determination his or her disagreement with the final determination of
standards and assessment methods.
Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures: The evaluator shall monitor such activities of
the management employee as he/she deems necessary to evaluate the management
employee's progress toward meeting the standards established in the Certificated
Employee Professional Evaluation R eport This monitoring phase shall include such
observations as the evaluator feels necessary and such conferences as either die
evaluator or the management employee feels necessary.
173
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Evaluation of Certificated Management Personnel (Cont'd.)
If the e valuator indicates to a m a n a g e m e n t employee that im provem ent is req u ire d in m eeting
the r e q u ir e m e n ts of the district, the evaluato r shall indicate to the m a n age m en t em ployee the
following:
1. A reas w h ere im p ro v e m en t is needed.
2. Specific suggestions for i m p r o v e m e n t.
3. A dditio nal resources that m a y be utilized by the m a n a g em en t em ployee to assist w ith
im p r o v e m e n t.
4. T he e v alu ator's role in assisting the m a n a g em e n t employee in im p ro vin g.
3. Techniques that will be used by the evaluato r in m e a su rin g im provem ent.
6. T he tim e schedule to be used by the evaluato r in fu tu re m o nito ring .
The m a n a g e m e n t em ployee sh a ll take such re m e d ia l action as is necessary to correct a n y cited
deficiencies in a n evaluation. A w ritten copy of the evaluation shall be presented to file
m a n a g em e n t em ployee p r io r to dose of the school year. A conference will be held between
the m a n a g e m e n t em ployee a n d the evaluato r to discuss the written evaluation.
At the fin a l conference each s ta n d a r d will be checked as M S (meets s tan d a rd ) or N1 (needs
im prov em ent). IfN I (needs im p rov em e n t) is checked, the evaluator will explain u n d e r the
section fer re co m m e n d a tio n s. A m a n a g e m en t employee sh all have a period of five (S) d a y s
following the fin a l conference to p re p a re a n d su b m it a written reaction in response to the
evaluation. S uch response will becom e a p e r m a n e n t a ttach m en t to the evaluation a n d b e
placed in the m a n a g e m e n t em plo yee's personnel file.
Derogatory in fo rm a tio n or allegations sh all be included as a p art of the evaluation process
only u n d e r the following c ir cu m sta n c es:
1 . T he m a n a g e m e n t em ployee h a s been notified in writing of the allegation.
2. T he m a n a g e m e n t em ployee has been affo rded an opportunity to try to a rr a n g e a m eeting
with the person or persons m a k in g the allegatio n.
3. T he alleging p a rty ha s been ap p r ised of legal constraints u n d e r w hich derogatory m a te r ia l
m ay be placed in a m a n a g e m e n t em plo yee's file a n d the allegation has not been w ith d ra w n .
4. The management employee has had the opportunity to have his/her written response to the
allegation inclu ded in the file.
Personnel File M a te r ia l: M a teria ls in personnel files of m a n a g em e n t employees which m a y
serve as a basis for affecting the status of their em plo y m ent shall be m ade availa ble for
inspection by the person involv ed.
In for m ation of a derogatory n a tu r e shall not be placed in a m a n a g e m en t em ployee's p ersonnel
file until the m a n a g e m e n t em ployee is supplied with a copy an d has h a d an opportunity to
respond in w ritin g to the m a te r ia l.
A m a n a g e m e n t em ployee m a y inspect m ater ia ls in his/her personnel file at a time m u tu a lly
convenient to the m a n a g e m e n t em ployee a n d the person ch arged with m a in tain in g the file.
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Evaluation of Certificated Management Personnel (Cont'd.)
A m a n a g e m e n t em ployee m a y be a ccom panie d by his/her representative at such tim e
as he/she is given a n o pp ortunity to review the m a te ria l in h is/her personnel file.
Evaluation of a m a n a g em e n t em plo yee's perfo rm a nce sh a ll not be predicated up on
lawtul, non-school-related p erson al activities, which have no im pact on h is/her
effectiveness as a n em plo yee.
Nothing in this regulation sh all be construed to allow for a n y in terpretatio n,
applicatio n or alleged violation with re g a rd to the. substantiv e stan d ard s, objectives,
assessment techniq ues or criteria d e te rm in ed by the evaluator or the district nor shall it
be construed to contest the judgm ent of the evaluator, a n y com pla int shall be lim ited
to a claim that the evaluation procedures have been violated or that there has been a n
unreasonable applic atio n of the procedures. In such case, the problem resolution
procedures shall be followed.
Regulation
approved 02/20/79
Revised: 10/18/94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A-9
Recommended Administrative Evaluation Procedures
Valley Christian High School
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
RECOMMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATION PROCEDURES
The following is designed to be a guide to administrative evaluation In the Bellflower Christian
Schools. It is to be put in final form by the Superintendent in conjunction with the two building
principals and the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors. It will be modified as necessary,
depending on the job description of each person, and the responsibility factors as determined jointly.
The first step is to determine the expectations of each position • from the point of view of the
administrator, and from his superiors).
The second step is to express these expectations in written terms so that each administrator involved
will have a dear understanding of what he is responsible for, to whom, and on what basis he will be
evaluated.
The third step is to get input from the persons who are responsible to the administrator as to the
effectiveness of his performance. This should be done through the use of the Administrator Image
Questionnaire. There are established norms to be used for comparative purposes.
The fourth step is a review process - twice during a given school year, to review the originally stated
goals to see to what degree they are being accomplished. They can be modified at this pdnt, or
dropped completely if inappropriate or taken care of. New ones can also be added.
The fifth step is to take a look at the dimate of the organization by means of a questionnaire to be
completed by the staff and other employees. Additional Input can be gained by questioning the
supporting constituency or parents only. Such should follow and established format for meaningful
results. This should be done once every three years.
The sixth step is to review, change, or redesign the evaluation process in the event that it becomes
obsolete or unmanageable. This is the responsibility of the Board's Executive Committee and the
Superintendent.
Other input can be provided by seeing what other school systems are doing, by reading current
literature, and by simply "watching" how our own system is working. The Superintendent's Advisory
Coundl could be helpful, as well as the building advisory committees.
A full-scale systemwide evaluation should happen every five years. This can be done internally or by
an outside source. This Is already happening at the high school level with the WASC reports.
177
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A-10
Survey Cover Memo and Information
Survey Group #1A, #1B, #2A and #2B
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Leadership Evaluation Practices Research Survey
Directions: Please complete this survey. Use the comment page to make any general
comments regarding this survey.
Please return this survey in the pre-addressed. postaae-pald return
envelope.
If you have any questions pertaining to this survey please feel free to contact
me. I appreciate your time in this important research study on
leadership/administrative evaluation systems.
Thank you.
John J. Smith
Any information that is obtained in connection with this
study, that can be identified as having been provided by
you, will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with
your permission or as required by law.
When the results of the research are published or discussed
in conferences, no information will be included that would
reveal your identity. If photographs, videos, or audio-tape
recordings of you will be used for educational purposes,
your identity will be protected or disguised.
Confidentiality will be maintained throughout this study. All
written information related to this study will be stored in a
locked cabinet or password protected computer. Data
associated with this study will be destroyed once the
dissertation has been approved._________________________
i
'J £ ft? ./**■ ^ 1 1 * ft •-:? ■ ' \
Dr. Guilbert Hentschke
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
(213) 740-3491
Mr. John J. Smith
(714)469-0211
(949) 448-0500
Secondary Investigator:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Leadership Evaluation Practices Research Survey
Directions: Please complete this survey. Use the comment page to make any general
comments regarding this survey.
Please return this survey in the pre-addressed, postage-paid
return envelope.
If you have any questions pertaining to this survey please feel free
to contact me. I appreciate your time in this Important research
study on leadership/administrative evaluation systems.
Thank you.
John J. Smith
Any information that is obtained in connection with this
study, that can be identified as having been provided by
you, will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with
your permission or as required by law.
When the results of the research am published or discussed
in conferences, no information will be included that would
reveal your identity. If photogmphs, videos, or audio-tape
recordings of you will be used for educational purposes,
your identity will be protected or disguised.
Confidentiality will be maintained throughout this study. All
written information related to this study will be stored in a
locked cabinet or password protected computer. Data
associated with this study will be destroyed once the
dissertation has been approved._________________________
Dr. Guilbert Hentschke
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
(213)740-3491
Mr. John J. Smith
(714)469-0211
(949)448-0600
Secondary Investigator:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Leadership Evaluation Practices Research Survey
a _________________________________ :
Dr. Guilbert Hentschke
Rossiar School of Education
University of Southern California
(213)740-3491
Secondary Investigator:
Mr. John J. Smith
(714)469-0211
(949)448-0500
Directions: Please complete this survey. Use the comment page to make any general
comments regarding this survey.
Please return this survey in the pre-addressed. postage-paid return
pn v p lo p f t.
If you have any questions pertaining to this survey please feel free
to contact me. I appreciate your time in this important research
study on leadership/administrative evaluation systems.
Thank you.
John J. Smith
Any Information that is obtained in connection with this
study, that can be identified as having been provided by
you, will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with
your permission or as required by law.
When the results of the research are published or discussed
in conferences, no information will be included that would
reveal your identity. If photographs, videos, or audio-tape
recordings of you will be used for educational purposes,
your identity will be protected or disguised.
Confidentiality will be maintained throughout this study. All
written information related to this study will be stored in a
locked cabinet or password protected computer. Data
associated with this study will be destroyed once the
dissertation has been approved.________________________
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Leadership Evaluation Practices Research Survey
o ti i w y y f^ m r
Or. Guilbert Hentschke Secondary Investigator
Rossier School of Education Mr. John J. Smith
University of Southern California (714) 469-0211
(213) 740-3491 (949) 448-0500
Directions: Please complete this survey. Use the comment page to make any
general comments regarding this survey.
Please return this survey in the pre-addressed, postage-paid
return envelope.
If you have any questions pertaining to this survey please feel free
to contact me. I appreciate your time in this important research
study on leadership/administrative evaluation systems.
Thank you.
John J. Smith
Any information that is obtained in connection with this
study, that can be identified as having been provided by
you, will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with
your permission or as required by law.
When the results of the research are published or discussed
in conferences, no information will be included that would
reveal your identity. If photographs, videos, or audio-tape
recordings of you will be used for educational purposes,
your identity will be protected or disguised.
Confidentiality will be maintained throughout this study. All
written information related to this study will be stored in a
locked cabinet or password protected computer. Data
associated with this study will be destroyed once the
dissertation has been approved._________________________
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A-11
Valley Christian High School
Administrator Image Questionnaire
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Administrator Image Questionnaire
Please respond to the following questions honestly and frankly. Do not give your name. All responses are
anonymous. Neither the administrator about whom these questions are asked nor anyone else will ever be able to
associate your responses with you.
Immediately after completion, your responses, along with responses of others from your group, will be analyzed.
An image profile representing how your administrator is perceived by your group will then be sent to him/her. The
profile is sent to no one else unless so requested by your administrator.
Pill in the blank which represents your reaction to each question. Be sure to fill in only one blank for each
question. If you change an answer be sure to erase thoroughly the incorrect mark.
Circle one of the following to indicate the administrator you are evaluating:
High School Junior High Elementary Superintendent Prop/Bus Manager
WHAmXQLiB O PINION CONCE R NING TffiS APMINISTRATQR'S:
1. Verbal Fluency: (Ability to express
ideas smoothly)
2. Consideration of Others: (Patience,
understanding, consideration and
courtesy for others I
3. Attitude Toward Job: (Interest
and enthusiasm toward work)
4. Technical Competence: (Thorough
knowledge and understanding of
the field)
5. Achievement Drive: (Initiative and
persistence needed to accomplish
meaningful goals)
6. Supportiveness; (Supporting
subordinates)
7. Flexibility: (Able to adjust rapidly
to changes in plans or procedures)
8. Performance under Stress:
(Functioning under pressure)
9. Openness: (Ability to consider
divergent views)
10. Encouragement of Staff Participation:
(Encouraging you to raise questions and
express opinions)
11. Ability to Delegate Responsibility:
(Assigning tasks to personnel capable
of carrying them out)
Poor Fair Avo. Good Excel.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12. Innovativeness: (Willingness to try
new approaches or methods)
Poor Fair Avq.
13. Success in Communicating Expecta
tions: (Defining and explaining what
is expected of staff members) ------------ ------------ --------
14. Fairness: (Treating staff members in
an unbiased and impartial manner) ----------- ------------ --------
15. Maintenance of Staff Morale:(Creating
a feeling of unity and enthusiasm
among the staff) ------------ ------------ --------
16. Sense of Humor: (Ability to laugh at
one's own mistakes) _______ _______ ____
17. Decision-making Ability: (Ability to
make constructive decisions) ------------ ------------ --------
18. Evaluating Ability: (Ability to
objectively evaluate programs and
practices) ------------ ------------ --------
19. Managerial Skill: (Coordinating the
efforts of others so that the
organization operates at peak
efficiency) ------------ ------------ --------
20. Awareness: (Consciousness of the
problems that exist on your level) _______ _______ ____
21. Self-control: (Maintaining control
of emotions when things are not
going right) ----------- ------------ --------
22. Leadership Skill: (Leadership
resulting in the attainment of
mutually acceptable goals) _______ _______ ____
23. Appearance: (Grooming and attire) _______ _______ ____
24. Loyalty to the Organization:
(Actions that indicate enthusiastic
support of organizational objectives) ----------- ------------ --------
25. Ability to Motivate Others: (Ability
to stimulate others to perform to the
best of their ability) ----------- ------------ --------
26. If you wish, please list one or more weaknesses of this administrator.
27. If you wish, please list one or more strength of this administrator.
Good
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A-12
ABC Unified School District
Principal’s Self-Reflection Evaluation Form
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABC Unified School District
Principal’s Self-Reflection for 2002-2003
Principal’s N am e:______________________
Work Location:_______________ _________
Directions: Please take a few moments to reflect on this year. Please note your highlights and
challenges of this year in relation to the goals in your site strategic plan and the attached artful
leadership skills. Please respond to each item in a brief manner. Bullet-type responses are
accepted. Please give specific examples if necessary. Please return your responses to Kathy
Frazier, no later than Thursday. May 15.2003. Please call Marv Lou Jones at extension 21120 to
schedule a thirtv-minute evaluative conference with Kathv after June 2nd but before you leave on
vacation. If you have any questions, please call Kathy.
Site Strategic Plan Goals:
Please briefly explain the progress made in achieving your site strategic plans. You may use a
bullet-type format for your responses.
District Goals Site
Plans/Objectives
Objectives achieved,
in progress, not met
with brief
explanations or
examples.
Next Steps,
Challenge Areas
/. High Results-Oriented Instructional Program
1. Students in ABC
score in the top
quarter in California.
2. ABC proves, via
results that socio
economic status does
not have to be a
school success
indicator.
3. A standards-based
curriculum
demonstrates
commitment to
"Learners of the
Future."
4. Staff and students
utilize an information
and technology-rich
learning and teaching
environment.
II. Extraordinary School and Community Partnerships
1. Business and
community
partnerships provide
rich learning support
within and beyond the
four walls.
2. Volunteerism
program puts large
number of volunteers
in our schools.
187
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. Community grades
quality of ABC
schools as an “A” or
“B".
III. Highest Quality Professional Staff
1. Extraordinary
professional growth
opportunities are
provided for
certificated and
classified employees.
2. The District will
employ and keep the
top 5% of quality
employees in all
areas.
IV. Inspiring Learning and Working Environments
1. Safe and secure
environments are
assured for students
and staff.
2. Support systems
are in place that treat
students, staff and
community as
customers.
3. ABC staff grade
quality of work life and
learning environment
as an “ A" or “B.”
Students and parents
rate learning
environment in ABC
as an “ A” or “B".
V. Modem School Facilities
1. Every school
modernized by
December 2003 in
cooperation with staff
and community.
2. A systematic
support system in
place to assure long
term modem facilities.
3. Technology is an
integral element in
school design and
renovation.
Artful Leadership Skills:
• Symbolic leadership
• Effective decision-making
• Ethics— values as leaders
• Creating and sustaining a shared vision
• Communicating in a new era
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Inspirational leadership
• Creating the capacity for innovation
• Sustaining excitement
• Group process
• Consensus building
• Management by results
• We lead individually, and collectively, by example.
• We see others as colleagues and not subordinates.
• We strive to earn others' trust and loyalty by actions.
• We praise in public; admonish in private.
• We tell the truth in supportive ways.
• We systematically reward accomplishments.
• We systematically confront incompetence.
• We stand firm on principle but abandon bad assumptions.
• We value listening and asking as much as telling and directing.
Please briefly describe three to five (3-5) specific instances that you effectively
utilized one or more of the above artful leadership skills.___________________
Artful Leadership Skills
Used
Specific Example Outcome(s)
Fiscal Management (attach one page or less):
Please describe your budget management process. Please indicate any
involvement with your staff in the process. What procedures have you used to
monitor your budget? Please describe areas of strengths. Please describe any
challenge areas and how you plan to address these areas.
Other:
Please list any other comments, examples, achievements that you feel are
noteworthy but not included in either your strategic site goals or in the artful
leadership section.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A-13
ABC Unified School District
Administrative Personal Performance Plan
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN
YEAR: ___________
Evaluates Pre-Evaluation Conference Date
Evaluatee's Title Evaluatee's Signature
Evaluator Title Evaluator's Authorizing Signature
Objective
l\:pt\iz\01S5zz.tbl
19/16/931.1
VO
Strategy Timeline
Page 1

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A comparison of public and private governance in new teacher induction practices

PDF

Accountability practices: A comparison between two elementary schools under different governance models

PDF

A comparative case study: Tutoring in reading in two settings

PDF

Exploring a team-based model for organizing schools: The case of Fenton Avenue Charter School

PDF

A case study of a successful urban school: Climate, culture and leadership factors that impact student achievement

PDF

A study of doctoral student -advisor satisfaction: Considering gender and ethnic grouping at a private research university

PDF

Communication techniques utilized by superintendents with their governing boards that develop trust, unity, and a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities

PDF

HP2 schools achieving in spite of: A case study looks at programs, culture, and leadership

PDF

Holding traditional and charter schools accountable for student achievement in one California school district

PDF

A case study of Long Beach Unified School District: How elements of effective reading strategies can be implemented at the secondary level

PDF

A longitudinal comparative study of the effects of charter schools on minority and low-SES students in California

PDF

Determining the impact of state takeover of school districts on the academic program at individual schools

PDF

Examining a successful urban elementary school: Putting the pieces together

PDF

Improving student achievement: An urban success story

PDF

American Sign Language as a high school language elective: Factors influencing its adoption

PDF

A longitudinal look at what's important in comprehensive reform: A case study

PDF

Emerging from the shadows of inner-city barriers: A California urban middle school that has outperformed its expectations

PDF

Black male perception of opportunity structures

PDF

A substitute teacher preservice staff development program: A case study of the Los Angeles County Office of Education

PDF

Arts in education and organizational culture: The impact of the arts on the culture of a school

Asset Metadata

Creator Smith, John Joseph (author)

Core Title Administrative evaluations and their impact on school leadership in public and private secondary schools: A comparison study of governance structure

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert (committee chair), Cohn, Carl (committee member), Gothold, Stuart (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-494889

Unique identifier UC11335751

Identifier 3133337.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-494889 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3133337.pdf

Dmrecord 494889

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Smith, John Joseph

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 au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA