Off-campus UNL users: To download campus access dissertations, please use the following link to log into our proxy server with your NU ID and password. When you are done browsing please remember to return to this page and log out.
Non-UNL users: Please talk to your librarian about requesting this dissertation through interlibrary loan.
EXPECTATIONS OF PERFORMANCE AND METHODS FOR THE EVALUATION OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to make comparisons between: (1) the criteria of evaluation of performance of principals in Nebraska schools, and (2) how criteria of evaluation in Nebraska schools compared with criteria used in current practice in evaluation of the professional performance of principals. A set of guidelines for evaluation of principal professional performance was the culminating product of the study, including recommended purposes and practices in evaluation, and a sample evaluation instrument utilizing these guidelines. The study utilized instruments used to evaluate the performance of school principals by fifty-nine Nebraska school districts and fifty-eight school districts representing all geographic regions of the nation. The instruments were categorized into either the management by objectives or performance standards categories. Criteria were compiled from the instruments and ranked according to frequency of occurrence. Comparisons were made between the rankings of common criteria. Major Findings of the Study. (1) The instruments of evaluation gathered were categorized as management by objectives or performance standards. (2) One hundred seventeen criteria of evaluation utilized by school districts in evaluation of school principals were compiled from evaluation instruments. (3) The greatest agreement between rankings of Nebraska criteria and those from the nation was on criteria describing an ability to work with certificated staff and to establish staff evaluation. Second most closely ranked was supervision of students. Of the twenty-four criteria with close place rankings between the state and national samples, four dealt with personnel management, five with managerial skills, four with curriculum and program development, four with fiscal and materials management, three with communication, two with school-community relations, and one each from the human relations and personal characteristics areas. (4) The greatest discrepancies in rankings noted were a much higher Nebraska ranking on an administrative management team criterion, and a much higher national priority for long-range planning. A higher Nebraska ranking was also noted for the following: (a) maintenance of communication and cooperation with the superintendent and central office staff; (b) maintenance of the physical plant; (c) maintenance of records and reports; (d) establishment of the "climate" and "guidelines" for the school; and (e) basing decisions of federal, state, and district regulations. (5) The top overall-ranked criteria centered on evaluation of staff, staff development, student supervision and discipline, leadership and creativity, communication, and organizational ability. Conclusions. (1) A clear trend toward, and demand for, accountability and subsequent evaluation of principals was evident. (2) Evaluation methods may be categorized into two categories: performance standards and management by objectives. (3) There are criteria which could be employed in evaluation of principals, regardless of the category of the evaluation, with the assurance of a degree of widespread usage as a support for the criteria. Local expectations may be met by placing local priorities on criteria. (4) The management team concept and/or close cooperation with the superintendent was a criterion of performance given high priority in Nebraska, probably due to the number of small school districts with few administrators. (5) If the evaluation process employed by a school district were to meet the test of productivity and fairness, the following guidelines must be met: (a) the principal must be made aware of the criteria of evaluation; (b) the procedures of evaluation must be understood and adhered to by all participants; (c) the management by objectives concept demands a mutual agreement regarding the goals to be achieved; and (d) mutual understanding and agreement of the timeline of the evaluation process must be accomplished.
Subject Area
School administration
Recommended Citation
EISENHAUER, RICHARD DEAN, "EXPECTATIONS OF PERFORMANCE AND METHODS FOR THE EVALUATION OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS" (1980). ETD collection for University of Nebraska-Lincoln. AAI8018674.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dissertations/AAI8018674