Indicator: Effective program and school leadership

Definition

Schools are led by effective principals and school leaders.

Recommended Metric(s)

Percentage of school leaders rated as effective, using an evaluation system that includes multiple measures

Example Instruments

Not finding an instrument that suits your needs? Visit EdInstruments.org for more measurement tools.

View CEDS Connection

Percentage of school leaders rated as effective, using an evaluation system that includes multiple measures

CEDS Connections offer guidance, including data elements and step-by-step analysis recommendations, for how to calculate select metrics.

Type(s) of Data Needed

Assessment data; surveys; observations; rubrics

Why it matters

Pre-K and K–12 school leaders play a key role in student learning, school discipline and culture, and teacher professional growth.1, 2 For instance, a study of principals’ value-added to student achievement—one approach to assessing school leader effectiveness—found evidence of meaningful variation across principals.3  In that study, highly effective principals raised achievement by the equivalent of two to seven months of additional learning in a given school year, whereas ineffective principals lowered achievement by the same amount.4 Principals also impact the degree to which teachers collaborate and grow professionally,5 as well as hiring and retention of more effective teachers.6, 7 According to research by the Consortium on Chicago School Research, effective school leadership is characterized as being inclusive and focused on instruction.8 For example, effective principals set high standards for teaching, encourage teachers to take risks and try new approaches, and offer regular feedback on classroom instruction. 

Research on principal value-added suggests that principal effectiveness tends to vary more widely in schools that serve a high share of students from low-income households.9 In addition, multiple studies show that the likelihood of attending a school led by a first-year principal, one with less experience, or one without a master’s degree is higher for students from low-income households, students of color, and those with low performance.10, 11

What to know about measurement

There is no clear consensus in the field about the best way to measure principal effectiveness, though emerging evidence suggests that approaches relying on multiple measures hold promise, including schoolwide growth data, scores on an evaluation rubric, and staff perception surveys.12, 13, 14 Examples of staff surveys that can be used to measure effective school leadership include the Effective Leaders sub-component of the UChicago 5E’s survey instrument,15 Panorama Teacher and Staff Survey,16 or The New Teacher Project’s (TNTP) Instructional Culture Insight Survey.17 However, no research has emerged at this point to show that staff surveys are valid and reliable measures of school leader effectiveness, and survey measures run the risk of offering a biased or potentially politicized rating of a leader, underscoring the importance of examining multiple measures. We have identified sample tools with an emerging evidence base; however, other instruments may also be appropriate to measure this indicator. We also note that a school’s value-added score is not an appropriate proxy for measuring the effectiveness of a principal, as it can reflect both the principal’s effectiveness and other school-level factors that influence students’ growth on learning outcomes.18, 19

Source frameworks

This indicator appears in seven source frameworks reviewed for this report. Our recommendation to rely on multiple measures of performance to assess school leadership quality is consistent with the recommendations of several source frameworks, including the Great Public Schools Indicators Framework.

References

    • 12

      Grissom, J. A., Blissett, R. S. L., & Mitani, H. (2018). Evaluating school principals: Supervisor ratings of principal practice and principal job performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718783883

    • 13

      Nelson, J. L., Grissom, J. A., & Cameron, M. L. (2021). Performance, process, and interpersonal relationships: Explaining principals’ perceptions of principal evaluation. Educational Administration Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X211009295

    • 14

      Kozakowski, W., Gill, B., & Shiferaw, M. (2021). Exploring the potential role of staff surveys in school leader evaluation. REL 2021-117. Regional Educational Laboratory, Mid-Atlantic, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.  https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED614069

    • 15

      University of Chicago Impact. (2022). 5Essentials. https://uchicagoimpact.org/our-offerings/5essentials

    • 16

      Panorama Education. (n.d.). Panorama teacher and staff survey. https://www.panoramaed.com/panorama-teacher-survey 

    • 17

      The New Teacher Project. (n.d.). Instructional culture insight. https://tntp.org/teacher-talent-toolbox/insight-survey

    • 18

      Grissom, J. A., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2015). Using student test scores to measure principal performance. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 37(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714523831

    • 19

      Chiang, H., Lipscomb, S., & Gill, B. (2016). Is school value added indicative of principal quality? Education Finance and Policy, 11(3), 283-309. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00184

    • 1

      Walsh, E., & Dotter, D. (2020). The impacto n student achievement of replacing principals in District of Columbia public schools. Education Finance and Policy, 15(3), 518-542. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00279

    • 2

      Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2012). Estimating the effect of leaders on public sector productivity: The case of school principals. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w17803

    • 3

      See Branch et al. (2012).

    • 4

      See Branch et al. (2012).

    • 5

      Goddard, R., Goddard, Y., Kim, E. S., & Miller, R. (2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 501–530. https://doi.org/10.1086/681925

    • 6

      Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210380788

    • 7

      Beteille, T., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2009). Effective schools: Managing the recruitment, development, and retention of high-quality teachers. CALDER working paper no.37. National Center for Analysis and Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER), The Urban Institute. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509688

    • 8

      Bender Sebring, P., Allensworth, E., Byrk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2006). The essential supports for school improvement. Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/essential-supports-school-improvement 

    • 9

      See Branch et al. (2012).

    • 10

      Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., & Horng, E. L. (2010). Principal preferences and the uneven distribution of principals across schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 205–229. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373710369833

    • 11

      Grissom, J. A., Bartanen, B., & Mitani, H. (2019). Principal sorting and the distribution of principal quality. AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419850094