The perceived effects of elementary school principal evaluation: An examination of four processe

This study addresses the perceived effects of the processes used to evaluate elementary school principals. The comparative study was designed for three purposes: (1) to analyze the effects of elementary principal evaluation processes; (2) to compare four major processes used to evaluate elementary principals; and (3) to identify characteristics of effective evaluation processes.;The study focused on the effects of four evaluation processes on perceptions of accountability, efficacy, support, and skill development. The research design was a correlational design utilizing a forty-five item survey. Eight to eleven survey questions were used for each of four dependent variables. A Likert scale was used for this study. The purpose of the design was to correlate the scores on the survey with the type of evaluation process used by the subject's evaluator. The four evaluation processes studied were Management by Objectives, Total Quality Management, Clinical Supervision, and Checklist Rating Scales.;The subjects for the study were elementary school principals in districts with 10,000 to 15,000 students. Forty-four districts were contacted for participation in the study. Twenty-seven districts agreed to participate by giving the surveys to elementary principals for completion. A total of 169 surveys were returned.;An analysis of the survey results was done using $rm SPSSspcircler$ for $rm Windowssp{TM}.$ A one-way analysis of variance post hoc multiple comparison test using the least-significant difference (LSD) test was conducted to perform multiple t tests between all pairs of groups.;When survey data was disaggregated, no significant difference was found between the male and female participants. Significant differences were found between both the Total Quality Management and Clinical Supervision models and the Checklist Rating Scale and Management by Objectives models.;On every single item, the Total Quality Management and Clinical Supervision groups indicated a more positive response. The differences were especially pronounced for measures of accountability and self-efficacy. Both processes contain provisions for coaching and feedback about performance. Both require that the evaluator spend time observing, conferring, and giving focus to curriculum and instruction.