Top

Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability

Published in:

01-08-2015

How effective is the principal? Discrepancy between New Zealand teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of principal effectiveness

Authors: Claire E. L. Sinnema, Viviane M. J. Robinson, Larry Ludlow, Denyse Pope

Published in: Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability | Issue 3/2015

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

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.

previous article Student perception of assessment practices: towards ‘no loser’ classrooms for all students in the ethnic minority schools in Hong Kong

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

A school’s decile rating indicates the extent to which it draws its students from low socio-economic communities. Decile 1 schools are the 10 % of schools with the highest proportion of students from low socio-economic communities, whereas decile 10 schools are the 10 % of schools with the lowest proportion of these students.

Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W. (1998). Self-other agreement: Does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 577–598. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00252.x.CrossRef

Atwater, L. E., & Waldman, D. (1998). 360 degree feedback and leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 423–426. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90009-1.CrossRef

Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self–other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45, 141–164. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00848.x.CrossRef

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.

Avolio, B. J., Mhatre, K., Norman, S. M., & Lester, P. (2009). The moderating effect of gender on leadership intervention impact: An exploratory review. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(4), 325–341. doi:10.1177/1548051809333194.CrossRef

Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 930–942. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.930.CrossRef

Brutus, S., Fleenor, J. W., & McCauley, C. D. (1999). Demographic and personality predictors of congruence in multi-source ratings. Journal of Management Development, 18, 417–435. doi:10.1108/02621719910273569#sthash.dkq9ZYtV.dpuf.CrossRef

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage.

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.

Church, A. H. (1997). Do you see what I see? An exploration of congruence in ratings from multiple perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 27(11), 983–1020. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00283.x.

Daubman, K. A., Heatherington, L., & Ahn, A. (1992). Gender and the self-presentation of academic achievement. Sex Roles, 27, 187–204. doi:10.1007/BF00290017.CrossRef

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.

Edwards, J. R. (1993). Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of congruence in organizational research. Personnel Psychology, 46, 641–665. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00889.x.CrossRef

Edwards, J. R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4(3), 265–287. doi:10.1177/109442810143005.CrossRef

Fleenor, J. W., Smither, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Braddy, P. W., & Sturm, R. E. (2010). Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1005–1034. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.006.CrossRef

Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.CrossRef

Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 3–17. doi:10.2307/1002166.CrossRef

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.

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.CrossRef

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.

Heck, R. H. (1992). Principals’ instructional leadership and school performance: Implications for policy development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 21–34. doi:10.3102/01623737014001021.CrossRef

Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2010). Testing a longitudinal model of distributed leadership effects on school improvement. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 867–885. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.013.CrossRef

Heck, R. H., Marcoulides, G. A., & Lang, P. (1991). Principal instructional leadership and school achievement: The application of discriminant techniques. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(2), 115–135. doi:10.1080/0924345910020204.CrossRef

Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRef

Kenny, D. A., & West, T. V. (2010). Similarity and agreement in self-and other perception: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 196–213. doi:10.1177/1088868309353414.CrossRef

Kwan, V. S. Y., John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Kuang, L. L. (2008). Conceptualizing and assessing self-enhancement bias: A componential approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1062–1077. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.1062.CrossRef

Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265–268. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x.CrossRef

Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2007). New developments in and directions for goal-setting research. European Psychologist, 12(4), 290–300. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.12.4.290.CrossRef

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.

Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

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.CrossRef

Murphy, J. (2013). The architecture of school improvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 252–263. doi:10.1108/09578231311311465#sthash.BUnYQyul.dpuf.CrossRef

Ostroff, C., Atwater, L. E., & Feinberg, B. J. (2004). Understanding self–other agreement: A look at rater and ratee characteristics, context, and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 57, 333–375. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02494.x.CrossRef

Paulhus, D. L., & Bruce, M. N. (1992). The effect of acquaintanceship on the validity of personality impressions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(5), 816–824. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.5.816.CrossRef

Pont, B., Figueroa, D. T., Zapata, J., & Fraccola, S. (2013). Education outlook: New Zealand (pp. 1–24).

Reeves, D. B. (2008). Assessing educational leaders: Evaluating performance for improved individual and organizational results (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. doi:10.1177/0013161X08321509.CrossRef

Robinson, V., & Timperley, H. S. (2007). The leadership of the improvement teaching and learning: Lessons from initiatives with positive outcomes for students. Australian Journal of Education, 51(3), 247–262. doi:10.1177/000494410705100303.CrossRef

Robinson, V. M. J. (2011). Student-centered leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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.

Sinnema, C. E. L., Le Fevre, D., Robinson, V. M. J., & Pope, D. (2013). When others’ performance just isn’t good enough: Educational leaders’ framing of concerns in private and public. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12(4), 301–336. doi:10.1080/15700763.2013.857419.CrossRef

Sinnema, C. E. L., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2007). The leadership of teaching and learning: Implications for teacher evaluation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(4), 319–343. doi:10.1080/15700760701431603.CrossRef

Sinnema, C. E. L., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2012). Goal setting in principal evaluation: Goal quality and predictors of achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(2), 135–167. doi:10.1080/15700763.2011.629767.CrossRef

Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33–66. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.514_1.x.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Thomas, D. R., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Difference scores from the point of view of reliability and repeated-measures ANOVA: In defense of difference scores for data analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(1), 37–43. doi:10.1177/0013164411409929.CrossRef

Vecchio, R. P., & Anderson, R. J. (2009). Agreement in self–other ratings of leader effectiveness: The role of demographics and personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 165–179. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00460.x.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Title: How effective is the principal? Discrepancy between New Zealand teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of principal effectiveness
Authors: Claire E. L. Sinnema
Viviane M. J. Robinson
Larry Ludlow
Denyse Pope
Publication date: 01-08-2015
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability / Issue 3/2015
Print ISSN: 1874-8597
Electronic ISSN: 1874-8600
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-014-9209-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2015

Student perception of assessment practices: towards ‘no loser’ classrooms for all students in the ethnic minority schools in Hong Kong

The quality of teaching staff: higher education institutions’ compliance with the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance—the case of Portugal

Editorial

Beyond instrumentation: redesigning measures and methods for evaluating the graduate college experience