A study of the evaluation of principals in Tennessee school systems

Data were presented by percent of the frequency of responses, and the responses in parts II and III of the administrator's questionnaire were crosstabulated with administrative role and size of school district and tested for significance at the .05 level with the Chi Square formula.

The major findings of the study were as follows:

1. The two most important purposes of principal evaluation as perceived by administrators were "to improve instruction" and "to promote personal growth and competence."

2. Administrators rated the overall effectiveness of their district's administrative evaluation system as poor (25.2 percent), satisfactory (56.7 percent), and good (18.2 percent).

3. The methods most commonly used in principal evaluation as perceived by administrators were: self-evaluation, conference during the evaluation process, and informal evaluation as well as formal. However, the most important methods as perceived by administrators were: self-evaluation, post-evaluation conference, and conference during the evaluation process.

4. Only a small number of teachers (22.3 percent) responded that they participated in the evaluation of their principal. However, a very large majority thought they should.

The most important conclusions of this study were as follows:

1. According to the responses in this study, the 1974 mandate by the Tennessee State Board of Education requiring all professional personnel to be evaluated has not been adequately implemented with principals in Tennessee School Systems.

2. The inadequate use of available techniques, the lack of ample time devoted to the evaluation process, and lack of follow through activities have probably contributed to less meaningful principal evaluation systems.

3. District size appears to be a factor in the degree of implementation of principal evaluation, with the larger districts implementing more evaluation processes than smaller districts.

4. Only a small percentage of teachers participate in the existing evaluation process of their principal; however, they feel strongly that they should be involved, both in the development of the instrument and in the actual evaluation of the principal.