Skip to Main Content

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

Table 1.

Key Components, Processes, and Consequences of Principal Evaluation Systems across States (N = 51)

RequiredRecommendedNo Information
N%N%N%
 Components of Evaluation 
Student outcome 46 90 
Teacher effectiveness 45 88 
Leadership skills and practices 50 98 
Stakeholders surveysa 14 27 28 55 11 22 
Other components 14 42 82 
 Processes of Evaluation 
Goal setting 44 86 
Mid-year evaluation 28 55 18 14 27 
Self-assessment 30 59 10 20 11 22 
End-of-year evaluation 47 92 
Observations 34 67 18 16 
In-person meeting(s) 37 73 11 22 10 20 
 Consequences of Evaluation 
Exemplary rating 12 12 39 76 
Effective rating 12 44 86 
Developing rating 21 41 28 55 
Ineffective rating 30 59 19 37 
RequiredRecommendedNo Information
N%N%N%
 Components of Evaluation 
Student outcome 46 90 
Teacher effectiveness 45 88 
Leadership skills and practices 50 98 
Stakeholders surveysa 14 27 28 55 11 22 
Other components 14 42 82 
 Processes of Evaluation 
Goal setting 44 86 
Mid-year evaluation 28 55 18 14 27 
Self-assessment 30 59 10 20 11 22 
End-of-year evaluation 47 92 
Observations 34 67 18 16 
In-person meeting(s) 37 73 11 22 10 20 
 Consequences of Evaluation 
Exemplary rating 12 12 39 76 
Effective rating 12 44 86 
Developing rating 21 41 28 55 
Ineffective rating 30 59 19 37 

Notes: 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, New York, 2 percent.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal