Policy Brief - IA de Investigación especializada en el MIT

Resumen de políticas

Morgaen Donaldson

(Autor correspondiente)
Neag School of Education
University of Connecticut

Storrs, CT 06269
morgaen.donaldson@uconn

.edu

Madeline Mavrogordato

Universidad de educación
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1034

mavro@msu.edu

shaun m. Dougherty

Peabody College
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37203

shaun.dougherty@vanderbilt

.edu

Reem Al Ghanem

Department of Educational

Leadership

University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT 06269

ghanemra@bu.edu

Peter Youngs

Curry School of Education
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia 22904

pay2n@virginia.edu

PRINCIPAL EVALUATION UNDER THE

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EVERY

STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT: A

COMPREHENSIVE POLICY REVIEW

Abstracto
A growing body of research recognizes the critical role of the
school principal, demonstrating that school principals’ eﬀects on
student outcomes are second only to those of teachers. Yet policy
makers have often paid little attention to principals, choosing in-
stead to focus policy reform on teachers. In the last decade, este
pattern has shifted somewhat. Federal policies such as Race to the
Top (RTTT) and Elementary and Secondary Education Act waivers
emphasized principal quality and prompted many states to over-
haul principal evaluation as a means to develop principals’ lead-
ership practices and hold them accountable for the performance
of their schools. The development and dissemination of principal
evaluation policies has proceeded rapidly, sin embargo, it is unclear
whether focusing on principal evaluation has targeted the most
impactful policy lever. In this policy brief, we describe where pol-
icy makers have placed their bets in post-RTTT principal evalua-
tion systems and comment on the wisdom of these wagers. Nosotros
describe the degree to which principal evaluation components,
procesos, and consequences vary across the ﬁfty states and the
District of Columbia, and review evidence on which aspects of
principal evaluation policies are most likely to improve principals’
practice and hold them accountable.

https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00332

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
6
2
3
4
7
1
9
1
0
6
8
2
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
2
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

347

Principal Evaluation Brief

INTRODUCCIÓN
A growing body of research recognizes the critical role of the school principal, demon-
strating that school principals’ eﬀects on student outcomes are second only to those of
profesores (Hallinger and Heck 1998; Waters, Marzano, and McNulty 2003; robinson,
lloyd, and Rowe 2008; Branch, Hanushek, and Rivkin 2012; Coelli and Green 2012;
Dhuey and Smith 2014; Grissom, Kalogrides, and Loeb 2015). Yet federal and state pol-
icy makers have often paid little attention to principals, choosing to focus on teachers
as the prime target of their policies. In the last decade, this pattern has shifted some-
qué. Federal policies, such as Race to the Top (RTTT), the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) waivers, and the recent reauthorization of ESEA as the Every
Student Succeeds Act, emphasized principal quality and prompted many states to over-
haul principal evaluation as a means to develop principals’ leadership practices and hold
them accountable for the performance of their schools (jacques, Cliﬀord, and Hornung
2012; CEP 2014). The development and dissemination of principal evaluation policies
has proceeded rapidly and, we argue, haphazardly over the past decade. In focusing on
principal evaluation, have policy makers placed their bets on the right lever? Además,
do the policies emphasize the right things?

In this policy brief, we describe where policy makers have placed their bets in post-
RTTT principal evaluation systems and comment on the wisdom of these wagers. Nosotros
describe the degree to which principal evaluation components, procesos, and conse-
quences vary across the ﬁfty states and the District of Columbia, and review evidence
on which aspects of principal evaluation policies are most likely to improve principals’
practice and hold them accountable. This brief is the ﬁrst to comprehensively catalog
principal evaluation policies put in place as a result of federal policies that encouraged
principal evaluation reform over the past decade. We show that principal evaluation
policies include some promising evaluation practices, such as goal setting and, to a
lesser degree, stakeholder surveys (Locke and Latham 2002). De este modo, contemporary prin-
cipal evaluation policies appear more robust than their predecessors.

T H E P O L I C Y C O N T E X T F O R P R I N C I PA L E VA L UAT I O N S I N T H E U. S.
En los Estados Unidos, longstanding approaches to principal evaluation often had little re-
lationship to instructional leadership or student achievement, thus making them a poor
bet for improving principal quality (Goldring et al. 2009). En 2009, Goldring and col-
leagues examined principal evaluation instruments in sixty-ﬁve urban school districts
in over forty states. They found these instruments primarily focused on school leaders’
eﬀorts to establish rigorous learning goals, promote teacher professional community,
and hold school staﬀ accountable for student learning. Sin embargo, these instruments
paid relatively less attention to principals’ eﬀorts to implement ambitious curricula or
monitor instructional quality. Además, most principal evaluation systems were used
for formative purposes and few used evaluation criteria based on standards or evidence
(Goldring et al. 2009). Most principals were unclear about the purpose of principal
evaluación, did not feel their evaluations were useful, and perceived them to have lit-
tle impact on their motivation or performance (tomás, Holdaway, and Ward 2000;
Reeves 2005; Davis et al. 2011). As of 2009, principals’ evaluation track records sug-
gest it is a poor choice for policy makers seeking a high-leverage policy to improve the
quality of principals.

348

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
6
2
3
4
7
1
9
1
0
6
8
2
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
2
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Morgaen Donaldson, Madeline Mavrogordato, shaun m. Dougherty, Reem Al Ghanem, and Peter Youngs

P R I N C I PA L E VA L UAT I O N I N F E D E R A L P O L I C Y
Recent federal reforms have tried to improve principal evaluation to address many of
the weaknesses outlined above. Marking a shift from historical approaches, RTTT and
ESEA waivers encouraged principal evaluation systems to assess principal performance
based on student achievement and school leadership behaviors. One objective of these
new systems is to more closely connect the work of principals to improvement of stu-
dent learning. To meet this aim, RTTT and ESEA waivers required states to develop,
adopt, and implement principal evaluation and support systems that diﬀerentiate be-
tween principal performance based on their eﬀectiveness level (USDOE 2009, 2011).
Under ESEA waivers, Por ejemplo, a minimum of three performance levels is required.
Summative annual evaluation is mandated under RTTT but only recommended under
ESEA. ESEA recommends principals be evaluated annually in the ﬁrst three years of
service and at least once every three years after that.

Both RTTT and ESEA waivers provide only minimal guidelines to states for the de-
sign of principal evaluation systems. Although both policies mandate that principals be
evaluated using multiple measures (USDOE 2009, 2011), neither policy speciﬁes what
percentage of the ﬁnal summative score should be tied to student achievement and
growth. Además, both policies require states to develop and implement student
achievement and growth assessment measures, but they do not specify the measures
that must be used. RTTT, sin embargo, requires that the chosen assessment tools have high
technical quality (es decir., be fair, válido, confiable, and aligned to standards) y eso, for tested
Los grados, at least one of the used measures be the state’s standardized assessment (US-
DOE 2009).

Both RTTT and ESEA waivers recommend, but do not require, that states include
measures of principal leadership skills and practices. These measures can be supple-
mented by other measures, such as high school graduation or teacher retention rate
(USDOE 2009, 2011). Relacionado, neither policy speciﬁes the number of observations
required when observations are used in the evaluation of principals.

The two policies also include the provision of feedback but diﬀer in what they re-
quire. Both RTTT and ESEA waivers require that the principal evaluator provide timely
and constructive feedback, and that principal evaluation results are used to inform deci-
sions such as professional development, compensación, promoción, and tenure status
(USDOE 2009, 2011). ESEA waivers diﬀer from RTTT in that they require principals
be involved in the evaluation process (not just recipients of summative feedback), pero
neither policy speciﬁes whether principals need to complete self-assessments.

We now turn to state policies on principal evaluation. Based on our policy scan,
we summarize these policies across the ﬁfty states and Washington, corriente continua, and draw on
research to comment on the features of these policies. We suggest ways on how policy
makers could improve upon them.

States’ Principal Evaluation Policies in the Wake of Reforms
Almost all states have enacted new principal evaluation policies since 2009.1 Specif-
icamente, entre 2009 y 2018, ﬁfty out of ﬁfty-one states (98 por ciento) incluido

1. We analyzed the principal evaluation systems in all ﬁfty states. We started by gathering publicly available docu-
ments pertaining to principal evaluation policies. When no documents were publicly available, we reached out
to the Department of Education in the state and requested the documents. Documents included handbooks or
manuals, state statutes, state standards, and evaluation system Web sites. We then followed an iterative process,

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
6
2
3
4
7
1
9
1
0
6
8
2
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
2
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

349

Principal Evaluation Brief

Washington, corriente continua, enacted new policies related to principal evaluation and/or revised
such policies. The trend of passing new or revised legislation accelerated across this
período. Por ejemplo, en 2010, just two states passed or revised policies (Maryland and
Misuri), whereas ten states passed/revised policies in 2017 and eight did so in 2018
(see table A.1 in the online appendix, which is available on Education Finance and Pol-
icy’s Web site at https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00332). De este modo, the majority of mandates
for new and revised principal evaluation policies have only become relevant to practice
in the past two or three years.

Broad patterns suggest that most states devolved authority for principal evaluation
policy design to districts. This is perhaps the most common similarity across states but
not the only one worth noting. Forty-three states (84 por ciento) permit school districts
to develop their own principal evaluation systems as long as their systems are con-
sistent with state policy requirements. In thirty-one states (61 por ciento), all principals,
including both probationary and non-probationary school leaders, are evaluated each
year.2 Another fourteen states (27 por ciento) are simply more speciﬁc in how they diﬀer-
entiate the frequency of evaluations; probationary principals evaluated annually, mientras
non-probationary evaluated every two to four years. In twenty-seven states (53 por ciento),
principals must be evaluated by the district superintendent (or designee), the assistant
superintendent, or other district administrators (es decir., those who supervise principals).
The remaining states do not specify who is responsible for evaluating principals. fi-
finalmente, principal evaluator training is explicitly required in twenty-six states (51 por ciento),
recommended in four states (8 por ciento), but not mentioned at all in principal evaluation
policies in twenty-one states (45). In online appendix table A.1, we provide an overview
of the context of principal evaluation systems across states.

Components of Evaluation
Much of the innovation and variation in state policies for principal evaluation arises
from whether and how they use speciﬁc components to evaluate principals. Nosotros informamos
these diﬀerent components in the ﬁrst panel of table 1 and online table A.2, and brieﬂy
summarize them here.

Many states include measures of leadership practice and student achievement in
their principal evaluation policies, though few states assign a weight for these com-
ponents. All states require that districts assign principals summative ratings based on

similar to that used by Steinberg and Donaldson (2016), to gather information about the key aspects of the com-
ponents, procesos, and consequences of principal evaluation systems across all states. We started the document
analysis by designing a preliminary matrix that reﬂected potential components and processes of principal eval-
uation based on prior research. We used this matrix to gather information about the key aspects of the principal
evaluation system in a pilot state—Connecticut—which is part of a larger study on principal evaluation that also
includes Tennessee and Michigan. We then reﬁned, eliminated, and added categories. We tested the revised
matrix by using it to analyze the evaluation systems in Michigan, Tennessee, and Washington, corriente continua, contexts that
diﬀer with regard to collective bargaining context and district enrollment. The pilot process resulted in more
revisions and further reﬁning of the matrix. To ensure accurate analysis of the documents, two team members
used the ﬁnal matrix to code each state’s principal evaluation policy documents. Initial agreement levels were
0.8, which is often considered an acceptable degree of agreement (Landis and Koch 1977). The two team mem-
bers met to discuss and resolve any discrepancies between their codes and consulted with the remaining team
members as necessary. In the following section, we summarize the ﬁndings of this analysis. Note that though
Washington, corriente continua, is not a state, we follow prior policy work and include it in the analysis and ﬁndings.

2. Probationary leaders are those who do not yet have tenure (in states that tenure school leaders) or have not yet
been formally reconsidered for a contract extension (mostly in states that do not grant tenure for leaders).

350

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
6
2
3
4
7
1
9
1
0
6
8
2
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
2
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Morgaen Donaldson, Madeline Mavrogordato, shaun m. Dougherty, Reem Al Ghanem, and Peter Youngs

Mesa 1. Key Components, Processes, and Consequences of Principal Evaluation Sys-
tems across States (norte = 51)

Required

Recommended

No Information

norte

Components of Evaluation

Processes of Evaluation

Consequences of Evaluation

Student outcome

Teacher effectiveness

Leadership skills and practices
Stakeholders surveysa

Other components

Goal setting

Mid-year evaluation

Self-assessment

End-of-year evaluation

Observaciones

In-person meeting(s)

Exemplary rating

Effective rating

Developing rating

Ineffective rating

Notas: Some percentages add up to more than 100 due to rounding errors or due to
variables being partly required and partly recommended in some states.
aSurveys are prohibited in one state, Nueva York, 2 por ciento.

multiple measures of their performance. Virtually all states (norte = 50; 98 por ciento) re-
quire and one state recommends a leadership and practice measure in their principal
evaluation system. Sin embargo, only twenty-nine states (57 por ciento) specify the weight of
this component in the principal’s ﬁnal summative rating. The leadership and practice
weight ranges substantially from 15 por ciento a 100 por ciento, with the median leadership
skills and practices component accounting for about 55 por ciento a 57 percent of the ﬁnal
summative rating and 50 percent being the modal weight.

In a meaningful break from past principal evaluation systems, forty-six states (90
por ciento) require and three states (6 por ciento) recommend that districts include a student
outcomes component. Todavía, only twenty-nine states (58 por ciento) specify the weight of the
student outcomes component in the principal’s ﬁnal summative rating, with ranges
entre 20 y 50 percent and a mode of 50 por ciento.

Stakeholder surveys (principal performance surveys completed by teachers, par-
ents, estudiantes, etc.) are required by fourteen states (27 por ciento) and twenty-eight ad-
ditional states (55 por ciento) recommend them. When used, such surveys are commonly
utilized to collect data on principal performance even when districts are not required to
use such evidence in summative principal evaluation. En mesa 2, we present a more de-
tailed look at how stakeholder surveys are used. Stakeholder surveys carry independent
weight in the ﬁnal summative evaluation of principals in only four states (8 por ciento),

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
6
2
3
4
7
1
9
1
0
6
8
2
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
2
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

351

Principal Evaluation Brief

Mesa 2. Summary of Stakeholder Surveys in Principal Evaluation Systems across States (norte = 51)

Maestro
Survey

Alumno
Survey

Padre
Survey

Community
Members Survey

Other/Unspecified
Survey

Status

Required

Allowed

Prohibited

norte

—

norte

—

norte

—

Nota: The one state that requires other surveys, Mississippi, requires surveys in the form of self-evaluation
and supervisor evaluation.

and account for 10 a 30 percent of the summative rating. Only four states (8 por ciento)
require and two states (4 por ciento) recommend that districts include a teacher eﬀec-
tiveness component in their principal evaluation system, accounting for 5 por ciento a
15 percent of the principal’s ﬁnal summative rating (see online table A.3 for further
detail).

These components of new principal evaluation systems diverge from earlier ones
in several ways that make them more promising than their predecessors. Primero, nuevo
systems are much more likely than their predecessors to be based on standards for ef-
fective leadership that link principals’ actions with desired outcomes (Cliﬀord and Ross
2012). Both RTTT and ESEA waivers encouraged states to develop new principal evalu-
ation systems based on the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders, which ad-
dress several areas of leadership including: (1) curriculum, instrucción, and assessment;
(2) equity and cultural responsiveness; (3) professional capacity of school personnel;
y (4) ethics and professional norms (NPBEA 2015). The movement to ground prin-
cipal evaluation in professional standards is a promising one (Cliﬀord, Hansen, y
Wraight 2014). Standards-based evaluation systems can reduce subjectivity and provide
a more valid assessment of principal eﬀectiveness (Kimball and Milanowski 2009).
También, these systems usually require multiple sources of evidence that attest to educa-
tors’ performance and considerable evaluator training. Although research examining
standards-based principal evaluation is scarce, multiple studies on teacher evaluation
have shown that standards-based evaluation scores have moderate positive correlations
with student achievement (p.ej., Kimball et al. 2004; Milanowski 2004; Milanowski,
Kimball, and White 2004).

Segundo, some systems incorporate feedback on school leader performance from
key stakeholders, including teachers, colegas, and supervisors. Stakeholder feedback is
a promising element in principal evaluation in that it can provide useful, formative
comentario (Goldring, Mavrogordato, and Haynes 2015). Sin embargo, caution is warranted,
as very few instruments for stakeholder feedback have been validated (Cliﬀord, Hansen,
and Wraight 2014).

Tercero, starting in 2009 with RTTT and later with ESEA waivers, states have been
expected to use student achievement data in evaluating principals (Doherty and Ja-
cobs 2013). The evidence on including student performance in principals’ evaluations is
mezclado. Research indicates that principals aﬀect student test score performance in their
escuela (Dhuey and Smith 2014). Sin embargo, some have articulated challenges to incorpo-
rating student performance in principals’ evaluations. These include systematic sorting

352

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
6
2
3
4
7
1
9
1
0
6
8
2
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
2
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Morgaen Donaldson, Madeline Mavrogordato, shaun m. Dougherty, Reem Al Ghanem, and Peter Youngs

of students to schools, measurement error, and constraints on principals’ control over
the quality of teaching and learning students receive (Grissom, Kalogrides, and Loeb
2015). Y todavía, encima 90 percent of states include measures of principal practice and stu-
dent outcomes in principals’ ratings. Both measures are weighed heavily in summative
puntuaciones, marking a major shift from historical approaches to principal evaluation.

Cuatro, some states encourage school districts to combine summative principal
evaluation with eﬀorts to closely supervise school leaders and support their professional
growth (Cliﬀord and Ross 2012). Por ejemplo, some districts are using principal goal
setting to engage principals in continuous improvement cycles.3 Often, this is accom-
panied by a reduced emphasis on school leaders’ compliance with district priorities and
an increased focus on mentoring and coaching of principals (Anderson and Turnbull
2016; Kimball et al. 2015). De hecho, some large districts have shifted the role of principal
supervisor from ensuring principals’ compliance with district mandates to supporting
principals’ growth as instructional leaders (Rogers et al. 2019).

Process of Evaluation
As with the components of evaluation, states require some longstanding processes and
introduce other, new procedures to principal evaluation (second panel of table 1). Forty-
four states (86 por ciento) require and three states (6 por ciento) recommend that school
leaders engage in goal setting/plan development as part of the principal evaluation
process and forty-seven states (92 por ciento) require them to participate in an end-of-
school-year summative written evaluation.4 More than half of states require principals
to engage in self-assessment (norte = 30; 59 por ciento) while ten states (20 por ciento) recom-
mend it.5 As for mid-year evaluation, twenty-eight states (55 por ciento) require it and nine
estados (18 por ciento) recommend it. Finalmente, the majority of states (norte = 34; 67 por ciento) re-
quire school leaders to be observed as part of the principal evaluation process, mientras
nine states (18 por ciento) only recommend it (ver tabla 3, as well as online tables A.4 and
A.5 for further details).

Unlike the old single-source evaluation systems, new systems incorporate many
diﬀerent types of evidence on principal leadership behavior and student performance
(Henry and Guthrie 2015; Grissom, Blissett, and Mitani 2018). School districts collect
data on principals’ goals for themselves and their schools as well as their eﬀorts to
meet these goals. When structured to reinforce principals’ sense of autonomy and com-
petence, goal setting can support principals’ intrinsic motivation (Locke and Latham
2002). Además, principals appear to value evaluation systems that include goal set-
ting, reﬂection, and constructive feedback (Lijadoras 2008; Chacon-Robles 2018). Princi-
pals report that the goal setting in evaluation is useful and worthwhile, especially when

3. As described in Anderson and Turnbull (2016), goal settings is a process where principals are asked to identify
areas for improvement, collaborate with their supervisors to choose and deﬁne targets for improvement that
align with standards, and include a plan to achieve them.

4. An end-of-school-year summative written evaluation is generally a summative rating and evaluation report that
is delivered at or after the close of the school year. This contrasts with mid-year evaluations that are meant to be
formative, with the potential to redirect activities or focus in the latter half of the year.

5. Self-assessment is meant to be a reﬂective process whereby individuals review their goals and use their own data
and analysis to gauge their progress toward achieving those goals, and to arrive at an overall conclusion about
their performance.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
6
2
3
4
7
1
9
1
0
6
8
2
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
2
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

353

Principal Evaluation Brief

Mesa 3. Summary of the Types of In-person Meetings Required or Recommended in Principal Evaluation Systems across
Estados (norte = 51)

Goal Setting
Meeting

Pre-observation
Meeting

Post-observation
Meeting

Mid-year
Meeting

End-of-year
Meeting

Otro
Meeting

Status

Required

Allowed

No information

norte

Notas: A pre-evaluation meeting is required in Hawaii and Illinois. A Circle Survey meeting is required in Mississippi. Quarterly
meetings are required for novice principals in New Hampshire. Unspecified evaluation meetings are required in Utah. Para-
mative evaluation meetings are allowed in Maine. Frequent meetings are recommended in Washington. Frequent meetings
throughout the cycle are recommended in Wyoming.

aligned with district-implemented leadership standards, discussed with their evaluator,
monitored, and assessed at the end of the year (Lijadoras 2008). Además, they indicate
that goal setting helps them maintain a focus on their areas of improvement notwith-
standing their workload (Chacon-Robles 2018).

Goal setting appears to be particularly beneﬁcial when accompanied by other
reﬂective practices often encouraged in current principal evaluation systems, self-
evaluación, and feedback. When principals reﬂect on their own work, they become
more aware of their strengths and weaknesses, which can inform their growth plan
and increase their focus on activities related to leadership skills and practices (Alimo-
Metcalfe 1998; Blanco, Crooks, and Melton 2002). Por ejemplo, Lijadoras (2008) re-
ported that all principals in that sample valued self-reﬂection and considered it an im-
portant factor in the development of their leadership skills and practices.

Another salient practice in new principal evaluation systems is frequent feedback
provided by the principal’s supervisor. Under traditional approaches to principal eval-
uation, experienced school leaders were rarely assessed and seldom received feedback
that could enhance their leadership (Reeves 2005; Kimball, Milanowski, and McKin-
ney 2009). The infrequent nature of principal evaluation also meant that it did little
to facilitate leadership improvement or hold school leaders accountable for their per-
rendimiento, including decisions about promotion or dismissal. A diferencia de, new systems
feature annual ratings of principal performance based on evidence about leadership
behavior and student learning (Henry and Guthrie 2015; Grissom, Blissett, and Mitani
2018). These attributes of current approaches increase the likelihood that districts can
use evaluation data to support principal growth and improvement and to inform pro-
motion and dismissal decisions. Supporting growth can happen by providing princi-
pals with more frequent formative feedback throughout the year instead of exclusively
providing summative feedback at the end of the year (Burkhauser et al. 2013). Feed-
back has the potential to improve principal performance, especially when accompanied
with training and professional development (Locke and Latham 2002; Burkhauser et al.
2013).

Consequences of Evaluation
In perhaps the clearest departure from prior principal evaluation systems, most states
require districts to assign one of four performance ratings to principals based on their

354

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
6
2
3
4
7
1
9
1
0
6
8
2
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
2
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Morgaen Donaldson, Madeline Mavrogordato, shaun m. Dougherty, Reem Al Ghanem, and Peter Youngs

evaluation results and lay out clear consequences for performing below standard (tercero
panel of table 1). Thirty states (59 por ciento) require and two states (4 por ciento) recom-
mend that districts attach consequences to “ineﬀective” ratings, while twenty-one states
(41 por ciento) mandate and two states (4 por ciento) recommend consequences for “devel-
oping” ratings. The consequences for these two levels of performance are often the
same and typically include a remediation plan, more frequent observations and evalua-
ciones, intensive intervention, and dismissal if poor performance persists. Six states (12
por ciento) require and one state (2 por ciento) recommends that districts attach positive con-
sequences to eﬀective ratings; six states (12 por ciento) mandate and six states (12 por ciento)
recommend positive consequences for highly eﬀective ratings. Positive consequences
for these two levels of performance often include fewer observations, longer evaluation
cycles, additional leadership roles, promotions, additional compensation, and public
commendation or other acknowledgement (see online table A.6).

In previous decades, the results of principal evaluation had few consequences for
school leaders (Reeves 2005). Districts generally did not make connections between
evaluation data and eﬀorts to identify professional development opportunities or design
improvement plans for principals. Además, formal evaluation rarely led to school
leaders losing their positions. Current evaluation systems have sought to increase the
consequences of evaluation. States and districts are beginning to use the results of the
principal summative evaluation to hold principals accountable for meeting their ob-
jectives, make professional development decisions, determine principal termination,
and make salary decisions (Goldring et al. 2009; Kimball, Heneman, and Milanowski
2007; White et al. 2012).

There is more research on some of these consequences than others. Studies of ef-
forts to align principal pay with performance have not produced evidence that pay for
performance is associated with improved principal leadership skills and practices or in-
creased student achievement (Hamilton et al. 2012; Marsh et al. 2011; Matarazzo 2014).
Por ejemplo, Hamilton et al. (2012) studied the eﬀects of the Pittsburgh Principal Incen-
tive Program on Pittsburgh’s public-school principals and found that the opportunity
to earn an annual permanent salary increase of up to $2,000 and a bonus of up to $10,000 caused no change in the average principal performance, as measured by the
principal evaluation rubric in the district. Most participating principals reported that
the opportunity to earn merit pay did not motivate them to change their leadership
practicas (Hamilton et al. 2012).

I M P L I C AT I O N S F O R P O L I C Y M A K E R S
When policy makers seized on principal evaluation as a policy lever to improve the
quality of the nation’s principals, they were making a risky bet. It may have simply
been that they doubled down on the importance of educator eﬀectiveness and chose to
reform principal evaluation at the same time as they recast teacher evaluation. Cómo-
alguna vez, prior to RTTT’s 2009 promulgación, there was little evidence that principal evalu-
ation provided principals or districts with useful information, spurred improvements
to principals’ practice, or enhanced the quality of schools. Policy makers responded to
this information by making several key changes to principal evaluation. New systems
based on evidence of leadership behavior and student achievement have the potential

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
6
2
3
4
7
1
9
1
0
6
8
2
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
2
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

355

Principal Evaluation Brief

to strengthen leadership practice and school performance. En particular, districts that
incorporate multiple measures into their evaluations of school leaders seem likely to
promote a greater focus on student learning while holding leaders accountable for the
performance of their schools. Hasta la fecha, research and the popular press have described
general trends toward promising components and processes in principal evaluation.
Sin embargo, there is little research regarding the eﬃcacy of content, proceso, y estafa-
sequences of new principal evaluation systems at the state level. Tal como, this brief
provides the ﬁrst evidence on the actual prevalence of these new components and
procesos.

This policy brief surfaces several key implications for policy makers. Primero, mientras
más que 90 percent of all states have enacted principal evaluation policies that in-
clude measures of student academic outcomes and more than two thirds require ob-
servations of principals, researchers have noted the need for further development of
such measures. En particular, scholars have identiﬁed challenges to incorporating stu-
dent achievement data into principal evaluations (Grissom, Blissett, and Mitani 2012)
and there has been little research on the technical properties of principal observation
instruments (Cliﬀord, Hansen, and Wraight 2014). This suggests that policy makers
may want to consider placing less emphasis on both of these components of principal
evaluación.

Segundo, principal goal setting is required in 86 percent of states and research ﬁnds
that principals value this process, especially when it is linked with district leadership
standards and combined with opportunities to reﬂect on their practice (Lijadoras 2008;
Chacon-Robles 2018). Además, districts can combine goal setting and other sum-
mative approaches to principal evaluation with supervision of school leaders in ways
that support their professional growth (Cliﬀord and Ross 2012; Anderson and Turnbull
2016). This suggests that policy makers may want to continue to emphasize goal setting
as a key process in principal evaluation and consider ways to encourage principals to
select professional development opportunities that align with their goals.

Tercero, 92 percent of states require districts to provide principals with an end-of-year
summative written evaluation, y 55 percent require them to provide school leaders
with a mid-year evaluation. Research indicates that principals value constructive feed-
atrás (Lijadoras 2008; Chacon-Robles 2018) and that such feedback can potentially lead
to improvements in principal performance, especially when combined with opportu-
nities for professional development (Locke and Latham 2002; Burkhauser et al. 2013).
This suggests that policy makers may want to look for ways to increase the likelihood
that school leaders will receive constructive and timely feedback as part of the principal
proceso de evaluación.

Finalmente, 59 percent of states require that districts impose consequences when prin-
cipals receive developing or ineﬀective ratings, but there is little research on whether
such consequences lead to improvements in principal performance. Además, 12 por-
cent of states require positive consequences when principals receive eﬀective or highly
eﬀective ratings, but research has shown no relationship between principals receiving
monetary bonuses and either (1) changes in their knowledge and skills or (2) aumenta
in student achievement (Marsh et al. 2011; Hamilton et al. 2012; Matarazzo 2014). Este
suggests that policy makers may want to consider placing less emphasis on the conse-
quences of principal evaluation.

356

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
6
2
3
4
7
1
9
1
0
6
8
2
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
2
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Morgaen Donaldson, Madeline Mavrogordato, shaun m. Dougherty, Reem Al Ghanem, and Peter Youngs

C O N C L U D I N G T H O U G H T S
Empirical evidence demonstrating the importance of principals in promoting favorable
educational outcomes is growing and almost all states in the nation have instituted
policies changing the nature of principal evaluation. Has this ﬂurry of activity been
worth it? Compared with its counterpart for teachers, principal evaluation may be an
easier policy lever for districts and states to inﬂuence because collective bargaining is
less common among principals, y, when principals unionize, they are less powerful
than are teachers’ unions. In this policy brief, we document the components, procesos,
and consequences of principal evaluation across the entire United States, destacando
variation in the presence or weight of diﬀerent elements across states. This is one of the
ﬁrst comprehensive summaries of state policies on principal evaluation and provides
next steps for policy makers and researchers.

We ﬁnd that principal evaluation has been the subject of intense policy change in
la última década. Almost every state has instituted a new principal evaluation policy
desde 2009, with many new policies coming online in 2017 y 2018. In this new wave
of policies, principals continue to be evaluated on measures of leadership, y esto
measure is often the most heavily weighted of all components of principal evaluation.
In a clear improvement over earlier policies, these measures of leadership are more
likely to be standards-based. The presence of standards-based leadership measures in
principal evaluation policies bodes well for their likelihood of improving principals’
práctica. Además, consistent with the requirements of RTTT and ESEA waivers, nosotros
also ﬁnd that most principals in the United States are also now evaluated on the basis of
student performance, which aligns closely to the parallel process of teacher evaluation
reform over this same period. This is a substantial change from conventional principal
evaluation and may increase principals’ focus on student outcomes.

The presence of stakeholder surveys is also a clear deviation from earlier iterations
of principal evaluation policies. Sin embargo, stakeholder surveys play a smaller role than
do measures of leadership or student performance, con solo 27 percent of states requir-
ing them compared to the 90 percent that require measures of student performance
and measures of leadership. This may be a missed opportunity for schools to become
more engaged with and responsive to stakeholders.

Policy makers have placed a clear bet on principal evaluation in recent years. Given
their investment in this policy lever, policy makers and researchers alike should exam-
ine how school districts have implemented these policies, whether these modiﬁcations
have altered principal behavior, and if they have inﬂuenced student outcomes. Otro,
contemporaneous developments also warrant examination. Por ejemplo, what are the
implications of these changes to principal evaluation policy in the context of expanded
collective bargaining for principals? Are new principal evaluation policies aﬀecting the
supply of principals entering or remaining in this role? Policy makers would be wise to
be cognizant of these potential ripple eﬀects of recent principal evaluation policies.

Our ﬁndings also raise more speciﬁc questions about the composition of new prin-
cipal evaluation policies. Primero, the role of observations in principal evaluation deserves
careful attention. Only two thirds of states require that principals be observed, rais-
ing the possibility that evaluators are gathering other forms of data on which to make
judgments regarding principals’ practice. This may be understandable because lead-
ers’ work is broader than that of teachers. Drawing a valid and reliable inference about

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
6
2
3
4
7
1
9
1
0
6
8
2
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
2
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

357

Principal Evaluation Brief

principals’ leadership skills based on observed practice may be even more diﬃcult than
doing so for teachers. This is especially true if, in the absence of observations, es
unclear what indicators are being used by evaluators when assessing principal quality.
A second salient consideration relates to the role of feedback in principal evaluation.
Solo 73 percent of states require evaluators to meet with principals to provide feedback.
This raises questions about the quality of information principals receive on their per-
formance and whether or not they receive recommendations and guidance regarding
how to improve their skills.

Our investigation of the dimensions and emphasis of recent reforms in principal
evaluation policy reveals that there is substantial variation across states, the implica-
tions of which are not yet fully understood. Further investigating the elements of prin-
cipal evaluation should help to shed light on whether the policy activity of the last decade
has led to improvement in principal practice, retention of eﬀective principals, and in-
creases in student performance.

EXPRESIONES DE GRATITUD
Funding for this paper was provided by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute
of Education Sciences (R305A160100). All opinions expressed in this paper represent those of the
authors and not necessarily the institutions with which they are aﬃliated or the U.S. Departamento
of Education. All errors are solely the responsibility of the authors.

REFERENCIAS
Alimo-Metcalfe, Beverly. 1998. 360 degree feedback and leadership development. Internacional
Journal of Selection and Assessment 6(1): 35–44.

anderson, Leslie M., and Brenda J. Turnbull. 2016. Building a stronger principalship: Volumen 4.
Evaluating and supporting principals. https disponibles://ﬁles.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED570471.pdf . C.A-
cessed 19 Noviembre 2020.

Branch, Gregory F., eric a. Hanushek, y Steven G.. Rivkin. 2012. Estimating the eﬀect of lead-
ers on public sector productivity: The case of school principals. NBER Working Paper No. 17803.

Burkhauser, Susan, Susan M. Gates, laura. hamilton, Jennifer J. li, and Ashley Pierson. 2013.
Laying the foundation for successful school leadership. Santa Mónica, California: Corporación RAND.

Center on Education Policy (CEP). 2014. Federal education programs: NCLB/ESEA waivers. Avail-
able www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?DocumentSubTopicID=48. Accedido 3 Noviembre 2020.

Chacon-Robles, Brenda. 2018. Improving instructional leadership: A multi-case study of princi-
pal perspectives on formal evaluations. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at El Paso.

Cliﬀord, Matthew, Ulcca Joshni Hansen, and Sara Wraight. 2014. A practical guide to designing
comprehensive principal evaluation systems: A tool to assist in the development of principal evalu-
ation systems. https disponibles://gtlcenter.org/sites/default/ﬁles/PracticalGuidePrincipalEval.pdf .
Accedido 9 Noviembre 2020.

Cliﬀord, Matthew, and Steven Ross. 2012. Rethinking principal evaluation: A new paradigm in-
formed by research and practice. Available www.naesp.org/sites/default/ﬁles/PrincipalEvaluation
Report.pdf . Accedido 9 Noviembre 2020.

Coelli, Miguel, and David A. Verde. 2012. Leadership eﬀects: School principals and student
resultados. Revisión de la economía de la educación 31(1): 92–109.

358

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
6
2
3
4
7
1
9
1
0
6
8
2
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
2
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Morgaen Donaldson, Madeline Mavrogordato, shaun m. Dougherty, Reem Al Ghanem, and Peter Youngs

davis, Steven, Karen Kearney, Nancy Sanders, C. tomás, y r. Leon. 2011. The policies and
practices of principal evaluation: A review of the literature. https disponibles://www.wested.org/online_
pubs/resource1104.pdf . Accedido 9 Noviembre 2020.

Dhuey, Elizabeth, and Justin D. Herrero. 2014. How important are school principals in the pro-
duction of student achievement? Canadian Journal of Economics 47(2): 634–663.

Doherty, Kathryn M., and Sandi Jacobs. 2013. State of the states 2013 connect the dots: Using eval-
uations of teacher eﬀectiveness to inform policy and practice. Washington, corriente continua: National Council on
Teacher Quality.

Goldring, Ellen B., Xiu Chen Cravens, Joseph Murphy, Andrew C. Portero, Stephen N. eliot, y
Becca Carson. 2009. The evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban districts
assess leadership? Elementary School Journal 110(1): 19–39.

Goldring, Ellen B., Madeline Mavrogordato, and Katherine Taylor Haynes. 2015. Multisource
principal evaluation data: Principals’ orientations and reactions to teacher feedback regarding
their leadership eﬀectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly 51(4): 572–599.

Grissom, jason a., Richard S. l. Blissett, and Hajime Mitani. 2018. Evaluating school principals:
Supervisor ratings of principal practice and principal job performance. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis 40(3): 446–472.

Grissom, jason a., Demetra Kalogrides, and Susanna Loeb. 2015. Using student test scores to
measure principal performance. Evaluación educativa y análisis de políticas 37(1): 3–28.

Hallinger, Philip, and Ronald H. Heck. 1998. Exploring the principal’s contribution to school
eﬀectiveness: 1980–1995. School Eﬀectiveness and School Improvement 9(2): 157–191.

hamilton, Laura S., John Engberg, Elizabeth D.. Steiner, Catherine Awsumb Neslon, and Kun
Yuan. 2012. Improving school leadership through support, evaluación, e incentivos: The Pittsburgh
Principal Incentive Program. Santa Mónica, California: Corporación RAND.

the North Carolina edu-
Henry, Gary T., y j. Edward Guthrie. 2015. An evaluation of
cator evaluation system and the student achievement growth standard 2010-11 a través de 2013-14.
https disponibles://cerenc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/0-FINAL-Evaluation-of-NC-Teacher-
Evaluation-9-3-15.pdf . Accedido 19 Noviembre 2020.

jacques, C., METRO. Cliﬀord, and K. Hornung. 2012. State policies on principal evaluation: Trends
in a changing landscape. https disponibles://gtlcenter.org/sites/default/ﬁles/docs/StatePoliciesOn
PrincipalEval.pdf . Accedido 9 Noviembre 2020.

Kimball, Steven M., Jessica Arrigoni, Matthew Cliﬀord, Maureen Yoder, and Anthony Mi-
lanowski. 2015. District leadership for eﬀective principal evaluation and support. Washington, corriente continua:
Teacher Incentive Fund.

Kimball, Steven M., Herbert G. Heneman III, and Anthony Milanowski. 2007. Actuación
evaluation and compensation for public school principals: Results from a national survey. ERS
Spectrum 25(4): 11–21.

Kimball, Steven M., and Anthony Milanowski. 2009. Examining teacher evaluation validity and
leadership decision making within a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administra-
tion Quarterly 45(1): 34–70.

Kimball, Steven M., Anthony Milanowski, and Sarah A. McKinney. 2009. Assessing the promise
of standards-based performance evaluation for principals: Results from a randomized trial. Lead-
ership and Policy in Schools 8(3): 233–263.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
6
2
3
4
7
1
9
1
0
6
8
2
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
2
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

359

Principal Evaluation Brief

Kimball, Steven M., Brad White, Anthony T. Milanowski, and Geoﬀrey Borman. 2004. Exam-
ining the relationship between teacher evaluation and student assessment results in Washoe
County. Peabody Journal of Education 79(4): 54–78.

Landis, j. Ricardo, and Gary G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for cate-
gorical data. Biometrics 33(1): 159–174.

Locke, Edwin A., and Gary P. Latham. 2002. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting
and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. Psicólogo americano 57(9): 705–717.

Marsh, Julie A., Matthew G. Saltador, Daniel F.. McCaffrey, Kun Yuan, Scott Epstein, Julia
Koppich, Nidhi Kalra, Catherine DiMartino, and Art Peng. 2011. A big apple for educators: Nuevo
York City’s experiment with schoolwide performance bonuses: Final evaluation report. https disponibles:
//www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1114.html. Accedido 9 Noviembre 2020.

Matarazzo, Melissa F. 2014. Exploring accountability through performance evaluation: ¿Cómo
school and district leaders in three us school districts experience results-based evaluations? Doc-
toral thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MAMÁ.

Milanowski, Antonio. 2004. The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores
y rendimiento estudiantil: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education 79(4): 33–53.

Milanowski, Antonio, Steven Kimball, and Brad White. 2004. The relationship between
standards-based teacher evaluation scores and student achievement: Replication and extensions
at three sites. University of Wisconsin CPRE-UW Working Paper No. TC-04-01.

National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA). 2015. Professional
dards for educational
Professional-Standards-for-Educational-Leaders_2015.pdf . Accedido 9 Noviembre 2020.

estan-
líderes. https disponibles://www.npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/

Reeves, douglas. 2005. Assessing educational leaders: Evaluating performance for improved individual
and organizational results. 1st edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

robinson, Viviane M. J., Claire A. lloyd, and Kenneth J. Rowe. 2008. The impact of leadership
sobre los resultados de los estudiantes: An analysis of the diﬀerential eﬀects of leadership types. Educational Ad-
ministration Quarterly 44(5): 635–674.

Rogers, Laura K., Ellen Goldring, Mollie Rubin, and Jason A. Grissom. 2019. Principal supervi-
sors and the challenge of principal support and development. In The Wiley handbook of educa-
tional supervision, edited by Sally J. Zepeda and Judith A. Ponticell, páginas. 433–457. Hoboken, Nueva Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons.

Lijadoras, Kellie. 2008. The purpose and practices of leadership assessment as perceived by select
public middle and elementary school principals in the Midwest. Doctoral thesis, Aurora Univer-
sity, Aurora, IL.

Steinberg, Mateo P., and Morgaen L. Donaldson. 2016. The new educational accountability:
Understanding the landscape of teacher evaluation in the post-NCLB era. Education Finance and
Política 11(3): 340–359.

tomás, David W., Edward A. Holdaway, and Kenneth L. Ward. 2000. Policies and practices
involved in the evaluation of school principals. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 14(3):
215–240.

A NOSOTROS. Departamento de Educación (USDOE). 2009. Race to the Top Program: Executive sum-
mary. https disponibles://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf . Accedido
9 Noviembre 2020.

360

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
6
2
3
4
7
1
9
1
0
6
8
2
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
2
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Morgaen Donaldson, Madeline Mavrogordato, shaun m. Dougherty, Reem Al Ghanem, and Peter Youngs

A NOSOTROS. Departamento de Educación (USDOE). 2011. ESEA ﬂexibility: Frequently asked questions. Lavar-
ington, corriente continua: A NOSOTROS. Departamento de Educación.

Waters, Tim, Robert J. Marzano, and Brian McNulty. 2003. Qué 30 years of research tells us
about the eﬀect of leadership on student achievement: A working paper. Eugene, O: Mid-
Continent Regional Educational Lab.

Blanco, David R., Steven M. Crooks, and Jerry K. Melton. 2002. Design dynamics of a leader-
ship assessment academy: Principal self-assessment using research and technology. Diario de
Personnel Evaluation in Education 16(1): 45–61.

Blanco, Melissa Eiler, Reino Makkonen, Scott Vince, and Jerry Bailey. 2012. How California’s local
education agencies evaluate teachers and principals. REL Technical Brief No. 023. Washington, corriente continua:
A NOSOTROS. Departamento de Educación, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance.