0.1 Babo, g.(february 2009) principal evaluation and leadership  (Page 2/9)

Amesterdam, Johnson, Monrad and Tonnsen (2005), in collaboration with a myriad of statewide stakeholders, successfully assisted with the development of a comprehensive system for principal evaluation for the State of South Carolina. Central to this discussion and collaboration were district leaders and current practicing principals. Critical to the development of this system was an agreed upon criteria, which evolved from actual practice and current State and National standards.

The State of Illinois, in an effort to systemically address the issue of a consistent process of principal evaluation, passed legislation requiring the annual evaluation of one-year and multi-year contracted building principals. Adherence to this new law is mandated and strictly enforced. This responsibility logically falls directly to the district’s chief school administrator. The evaluation process must specify the individual’s weaknesses and strengths and is aligned to the state’s standards for school leaders (Dutton, Selbee&Schwartz, 2006). Similar work, although not necessarily legislated, is happening in many states across the country relying on both state and national leadership standards to establish baseline performance levels (Catano&Strong, 2006).

What can be deduced from these previous reports is that an agreed upon criteria and procedures are needed and essential to the process and the development of a reliable and effective model of principal evaluation. Continued study and discussion on this topic is critical for every state, particularly at the school district level. Central to this ongoing discussion are the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1996), a set of comprehensive leadership standards that have been influencing public school leadership since 1996 (Van Meter&McMinn, 2001). These standards have recently been revised and updated to reflect a more practical, operational and functional, rather than theoretical, approach to local building leadership and are now labeled the Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008 (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2007).

A majority of university administrator preparation programs have developed their curricula on this set of national standards, commonly known as the ISLLC standards, in order to prepare their students for the business of leading schools and successfully passing individual state licensure exams (Ellett, 1999; Latham&Pearlman, 1999; Lindle, Stalion&Young, 2004; Murphy, 2002; Murphy, 2005; Murphy, Yff&Shipman, 2000). If administrator preparation programs are going to continue to develop their curriculums based in and around these standards, then a better understanding of how these standards are actually applied to the summative evaluation process of building principals in the real world of public schools by chief school administrators is a necessity for these programs and their students (Barnet, 2004).

The primary objective of this project was to provide a more detailed description, along with “real time” information to the community of New Jersey educational administration preparation programs, as to what are considered to be the critical elements, skills and competencies current Chief School Administrators in the State of New Jersey (NJ) believe to be important when constructing summative evaluations for their school district’s building principals. A secondary objective was to attempt to distinguish between what are the essential, as opposed to the important, leadership functions and job responsibilities of a building principal as defined by the ISLLC standards and determined by New Jersey Chief School Administrators through the summative evaluation process.