Abstract
The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to describe how well the “promise” of Idaho’s new model of performance evaluation of public school principals (IDAPA 121) compares with its actual impact on principals’ reflective practice, professional development, and leadership practices. Research questions that shaped the study explored (a) the impact of the professional practice standards and student growth measure of IDAPA 121, and (b) what circumstances contributed most significantly to reflective practice and professional development of Idaho school principals.
A review of the literature revealed five key themes and trends that shaped this study’s research questions and methodology: (a) perceived problems with traditional principal evaluation before the federal Race to the Top and ESEA Waiver program; (b) the promise of a reformed principal evaluation system to improve school leadership, teaching and student learning; (c) best practice recommendations to provide a meaningful and impactful evaluation experience for principals; (d) criticisms of the new model of principal evaluations; and (e) what the literature does and does not tell us about principal evaluation and its effect on reflective practice, professional development and leadership behaviors and practices.
Data were collected through semi-structured interviews of ten active public school principals from two large, suburban Idaho school districts. Five participants were elementary level principals and five were middle school principals. Data analysis revealed four major findings:
1. Participants experienced evaluation under IDAPA 121 as a perfunctory, isolated end of year event that had no meaningful impact on their reflective practice, professional development or leadership practice.
2. The student growth component of IDAPA 121, and the prospect of being evaluated partly on student growth had no impact on the participants’ leadership focus or practices.
3. Participants believe that policy makers and the school policy related to their performance evaluation are out of touch with what happens in schools.
4. Participants had clear ideas for improving the system so principals would experience more meaningful reflective practice and professional development.
A number of possible explanations for these findings are explored. These include (a) operational issues with implementation of IDAPA 121, and (b) deeper, more substantive issues that raise questions about the viability of using standards-based evaluations to drive effective professional development, and possible conflicts between IDAPA 121’s summative and formative objectives. Recommendations for possible policy changes and further research conclude this study.