by Gail Connelly
Principal, November/December 2010

Sometimes the Department of Education speaks loudly, sometimes softly. When it speaks loudly, it can dominate the discussion about education: reform models that require the dismissal of principals in low-performing schools, billion-dollar Race to the Top and other competitive grant programs, and the 41-page blueprint to transform No Child Left Behind, to cite a few examples. Other issues—equal in importance but perhaps not in volume—are often in danger of being drowned out by the din.

That’s seemingly the case with the department’s proposed definitions of “effective” and “highly effective” principals—a scant 200 words that, if enacted, will likely have far-reaching consequences for your career and your school.

NAESP has taken issue with many of the millions of words expressed about school improvement, but none gives us greater concern than these brief definitions. They could be used to determine which districts and schools will be eligible for federal discretionary education grants, and as such, represent another attempt to hold principals accountable for outcomes far beyond their control, a practice NAESP strongly opposes. The proposed definitions follow:

Effective principal means a school principal whose students, overall and for each subgroup, achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth. A method for determining if a principal is effective must include multiple measures, and effectiveness must be evaluated, in significant part, on the basis of student growth. Supplemental measures may include, for example, high school graduation rates and college enrollment rates, as well as evidence of providing supportive teaching and learning conditions, strong instructional leadership, and positive family and community engagement.

Highly effective principal means a principal whose students, overall and for each subgroup, achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth. A method for determining if a principal is highly effective must include multiple measures, provided that principal effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, on the basis of student growth. Supplemental measures may include, for example, high school graduation rates, college enrollment rates, evidence of providing supportive teaching and learning conditions, strong instructional leadership, and positive family and community engagement, or evidence of attracting, developing, and retaining high numbers of effective teachers.

NAESP believes that these definitions erode the principalship. More important, so do you. In a survey the Association conducted in September, 70 percent of you say that it is inappropriate to define principal effectiveness in significant measure as “at least one grade level in an academic year” of student growth. NAESP heard you loud and clear, and we expressed your opposition in a formal letter to the department that focused on four concerns:

The definitions diminish state and local authority to set criteria for evaluating principals. NAESP believes the discretion for establishing evaluation criteria must reside solely with state and local districts that work with teachers and principals daily and understand each community’s unique challenges.

They fail to address the intricate nature of a principal’s job. To narrowly define the performance of a principal “in significant measure” by student growth of at least one grade level in an academic year overall and across all subgroups (unfortunately vague and being interpreted by many states as more than 50 percent) is incomplete and ill-informed.

They do not adequately account for school circumstances, such as high mobility and poverty rates. The proposed definitions fail to acknowledge the nuances of grade-level equivalency, especially among such subgroups as special-needs students and English language learners.

They still rely too heavily on student standardized test scores. The research is indisputable: A quality education must meet a child’s social, emotional, behavioral, and academic needs, not simply reflect performance on a single annual test.

I encourage you to read our comments in their entirety at www.naesp.org/advocacy. As this issue of Principal goes to press, some form of the definitions will probably be included in the regulations for federal discretionary grants. But we will continue to take action that keeps you and your colleagues at the forefront of decisions that affect your profession. Also, we’re building on Leading Learning Communities, NAESP’s standards that establish what principals should know and be able to do, by working to develop a reasonable evaluation process that will help keep federal definitions like these out of the ESEA reauthorization. Please lend your voice to this effort, and send your thoughts to advocacy@naesp.org.

Gail Connelly is executive director of NAESP
 
Copyright © National Association of Elementary School Principals. No part of the articles in NAESP magazines, newsletters, or Web site may be reproduced in any medium without the permission of the National Association of Elementary School Principals. For more information, view NAESP's reprint policy.