How effective is the principal? Discrepancy between New Zealand teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of principal effectiveness
- 626 Downloads
Multi-source evaluation of school principals is likely to become increasingly common in education contexts as the evidence accumulates about the relationship between principal effectiveness and student achievement. The purpose of this study was to examine (1) the magnitude and direction of discrepancy between how principals and their teachers perceive the principal’s effectiveness and (2) what predicts principals who are at risk because their self-ratings considerably exceed the ratings others give them. We also investigated the appropriateness of various probability cut levels in analyses to predict overrating principals. The data sources were ratings by New Zealand principals (n = 135) and their teachers (n = 2757) of principal effectiveness—one scale (16 items) of an educational leadership practices survey. On average, both groups rated principals highly, and teachers tended to rate their principal higher than the principals rated themselves. There was more variance in teachers’ ratings than principals’ ratings. The variables of principal age (younger), time in principal role at the school (shorter), and socio-economic status of the school (lower) were all associated with greater magnitudes of discrepancy. Such discrepancies have implications for principals’ evaluations, principal development efforts, and for school improvement.
KeywordsLeadership Principal effectiveness Educational leadership Self-other agreement Discrepancy
We wish to thank Andrew Porter (University of Pennsylvania), Joseph Murphy (Vanderbilt University), Ellen Goldring (Vanderbilt University), and Stephen N. Elliott (Arizona State University), the authors of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education, for use of portions of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) structure and other items from the VAL-ED.
- Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1997). Self–other rating agreement: A review and model. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 121–174). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
- Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Day, C., Sammons, P., Leithwood, K., Hopkins, D., Gu, Q., Brown, E., & Ahtaridou, E. (2011). Successful school leadership: Linking with learning and achievement. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Goldring, E., Cravens, X. C., Murphy, J., Porter, A. C., Elliott, S. N., & Carson, B. (2009). The evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban districts assess leadership? The Elementary School Journal, 110(1). doi: 10.1086/598841.
- Goldring, E., & Goff, P. T. (2010). Understanding feedback from teachers on leadership effectiveness: Do teachers and principals agree? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Denver.Google Scholar
- Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091–1123. doi: 10.3102/0002831211402663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Halverson, S. K., Tonidandel, S., Barlow, C. B., & Dipboye, R. L. (2005). Self–other agreement on a 360-degree leadership evaluation. In S. Reddy (Ed.), Multi-source performance assessment: Perspective and Insights. Hyderabad: ICFAI University Press.Google Scholar
- Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Le Fevre, D., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2014). The interpersonal challenges of instructional leadership: Principals’ effectiveness in conversations about performance issues. Educational Administration Quarterly, 1–38. doi: 10.1177/0013161X13518218.
- Le Fevre, D., Robinson, V. M. J., & Sinnema, C. E. L. (2014). Genuine inquiry: Widely espoused yet rarely enacted. Education Management and Leadership. doi: 10.1177/1741143214543204.
- Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
- Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Minor, E. C., Porter, A. C., Murphy, J., Goldring, E., Cravens, X., & Elliott, S. N. (2014). A known group analysis validity study of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education in US elementary and secondary schools. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(1), 29–48. doi: 10.1007/s11092-013-9180-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pont, B., Figueroa, D. T., Zapata, J., & Fraccola, S. (2013). Education outlook: New Zealand (pp. 1–24).Google Scholar
- Reeves, D. B. (2008). Assessing educational leaders: Evaluating performance for improved individual and organizational results (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
- Robinson, V. M. J. (2011). Student-centered leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Robinson, V. M. J., & Le Fevre, D. (2011). Principals’ capability in challenging conversations: the case of parental complaints. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(3), 227–255. doi: 10.1108/09578231111129046.
- Scheffer, J. (2002). Dealing with missing data. Research Letters in the Information and Mathematical Sciences, 3, 153–160.Google Scholar
- Sun, M., Youngs, P., Yang, H., Chu, H., & Zhao, Q. (2012). Association of district principal evaluation with learning-centered leadership practice: Evidence from Michigan and Beijing. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24, 189–213. doi: 10.1007/s11092-012-9145-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2008). What makes you think you’re so smart? Measured abilities, personality, and sex differences in relation to self-estimates of multiple intelligences. Journal of Individual Differences, 29, 35–44. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001.29.1.35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar