Aspiring Principals' Perspectives about Teacher Supervision and Evaluation - Insights for Educational Leadership Preparation

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by ahduag

A qualitative study examines how aspiring principals understand teacher supervision and evaluation, including their definitions and concerns about carrying out these responsibilities during their first administrative appointment. Thirty-two graduate students participated in online instruction and reflected on formative supervision versus teacher evaluation. Findings highlight strong familiarity with formative supervision, limited clarity regarding evaluation, and worries about time, instructional leadership, and delivering constructive feedback quickly. Recommendations are provided for university preparation programs.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages17

Reading Time43 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Theoretical Framework

Adult Learning Theory

Instructional Change and Principal Leadership

Aspiring Principals' Perspectives about Teacher Supervision and Evaluation: Insights for Educational Leadership Preparation Programs Bret G Range University of Wyoming Courtney McKim University of Wyoming Ian M. Mette University of Wyoming David J. Hvidston University of Wyoming This qualitative study sought to understand the views of aspiring principals about teacher supervision and evaluation issues, including their perceived definitions of each, as well as concerns about performing either duty in their first administrative role. Thirty-‐two educational administration graduate students enrolled in an instructional leadership class participated in on -‐ line instruction on teacher supervision and evaluation. Findings indicated participants understood the concept of formative supervision but were less clear when defining teacher evaluation. Specifically, aspiring principals used many terms associated with supervision as a role of principals when evaluating teachers. Participants’ primary concerns with completing supervision and evaluation requirements during their first administrative job included having adequate time to be an instructional leader, and being able to deliver constructive feedback to low-‐ performing teachers to influence and improve instructional practice quickly. Recommendations for university preparation programs that train pre-‐service principals are included. Introduction As university preparation programs train aspiring principals to respond to accountability mandates, the pressure to equip aspiring principals with the skills necessary to become catalysts for school improvement becomes increasingly important (Duncan, Range, & Scherz, 2011; Hernandez & Roberts, 2012; Risen & Tripses, 2008) . This statement is especially valid in light of researchers who argue teacher ineffectiveness is the greatest determinant to increased student achievement (Stronge, Ward, & Grant, 2011) . As a result, it is logical to assume principals indirectly impact student achievement by leveraging their leadership responsibilities to hire, support, and develop effective teachers (Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). Moreover, principals impact instructional change in schools by encouraging teachers’ reflective practice, providing feedback to teachers about instruction, and creating school environments that exhibit positive instructional climates (Fink & Markholt, 2011; Ing, 2009) . Through policy reform, legislators have echoed the nexus between principal leadership and teacher effectiveness and the call for well-‐prepared principals who can navigate schools’ complex problems (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 2009; No Child Left Behind Act, 2002; Sappington, Baker, Gardner, & Pacha, 2010) . However, researchers postulate that although improving, curricula and methods at over 500 colleges and universities who train principals remain incongruent to school district needs and to the demands ofthe principalship (Levine, 2005; Mitgang, Gill, & Cummins, 2013) . Orr (2006, 2009, 2011) has written extensively on this topic and explains public criticisms surrounding graduate programs in educational leadership center on candidate selection, focus, content, rigor, and retention. Orr (2006) found model principal preparation programs included revamped organizing principles, new methods by which to deliver program content, improved pedagogical practices, structured internships, and partnerships with school districts and businesses for more extensive learning opportunities. One critical aspect of aspiring principal training is instruction on how principals can effectively coach teachers for improvement, plan effective professional development for teachers, and understand how formative supervision and summative evaluation can improve teaching (Mitgang & Gill, 2012) . Collectively deemed instructional leadership (Stiggins & Duke, 2008), educational leadership curriculum at universitie

FAQs

What did the study aim to understand about aspiring principals?

It explored aspiring principals’ views on teacher supervision and evaluation, including how they define each and their concerns about performing both responsibilities in their first administrative role.

What were the key findings from the graduate students’ responses?

Participants showed a clear understanding of formative supervision but were less certain when defining teacher evaluation, often using supervision-related terms for evaluation roles.

What concerns did participants report about completing supervision and evaluation early in their careers?

They focused on needing adequate time to act as instructional leaders and the ability to deliver constructive feedback to low-performing teachers to improve instructional practice quickly.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by ahduag