In 2010, the state of Pennsylvania began the work of creating and adopting a state-wide principal effectiveness plan that mirrored the framework established for the evaluation of teachers. Backed by a series of assumptions about the power of an assessment or evaluation tool to increase the effectiveness of school leaders, a team of educators at the state level reviewed plans from numerous states and districts as well as the widely recognized VAL-ED school leadership evaluation plan to inform the creation of a plan tailored for Pennsylvania school leaders.
The growing focus on evaluation of school leaders was fueled in part by a disconnect between overwhelmingly positive principal evaluations and standardized state assessment scores for student achievement that indicate a disproportionate percentage of “failing” schools. A growing body of research has explored the influences of principal leadership on student performance as well as the theoretical frameworks for effective principal evaluation plans. Less prevalent was research on the influence of an evaluation plan to guide, change or improve the practices of school leaders.
In the 2012-13 school year, over 200 school district, charter schools, Career and Technology Centers, and intermediate units in Pennsylvania agreed to implement the Principal Effectiveness Plan (PEP), later called the Pennsylvania Framework for Leadership (PFL), for the possible evaluation of up to 1900 school leaders in over 1300 individual school sites. This research was designed specifically to study the influence of the pilot year of the Pennsylvania Framework for Leadership on a group of principals in secondary schools in Pennsylvania by exploring how the principals conceptualized the uses of the plan on their daily practices.
The study was designed to explore qualitative data gathered through 17 secondary principal interviews which were a representative sample targeted from the 117 secondary principals who completed the pilot process and were included in the data set of 484 principal reports submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Education at the end of the pilot year. In addition, survey data from PDE were used to inform the construction of the interview protocol. Researcher journal and memos were also considered (Maxwell, 2005, p. 96, p. 110, Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 72).
|Commitee:||DeFlaminis, John, Quinn, Rand|
|School:||University of Pennsylvania|
|Department:||Educational and Organizational Leadership|
|School Location:||United States -- Pennsylvania|
|Source:||DAI-A 78/03(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Educational evaluation, Educational leadership|
|Keywords:||Leadership, Pennsylvania, Principal, School improvement|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be