[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-601836-105":59,"doc-detail-601836-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","principal-evaluation-in-indiana-vol-17-no-2-december-2016","Principal Evaluation in Indiana - Vol. 17 No. 2 - December 2016","","Principal Evaluation in Indiana examines administrators’ perceptions of a state-developed principal evaluation model adopted across most Indiana school districts following educator-evaluation reform legislation. Data were gathered from public school superintendents (evaluators) and principals (those evaluated), with 364 participants. Mixed-methods analyses identify model utility, implementation challenges, and statistically significant perception differences. Both groups view the model as an improvement, yet superintendents rate efficacy and fidelity higher; principals do not recommend it, informing future policy and field-based support recommendations.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/principal-evaluation-in-indiana-vol-17-no-2-december-2016/601836/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/principal-evaluation-in-indiana-vol-17-no-2-december-2016/601836.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"ahduag","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":34},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Who participated in the study, and how was feedback collected?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The study gathered feedback from public school superintendents (evaluators) and principals (those being evaluated), with 364 participants.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What did the mixed-methods analysis reveal about perceptions of the new model?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The analysis found areas of model utility and implementation challenges, along with statistically significant differences between principals’ and superintendents’ perceptions of model efficacy.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why did principals in the study not recommend the new evaluation model?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Although both groups viewed it as an improvement over traditional models, principals did not perceive the new model as effective for principal evaluation and would not recommend it to colleagues.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},601836,1792165746,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":34,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":46,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":31},3985747870414,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","Principal Evaluation in Indiana: Practitioners’Perceptions of a New Statewide Model  \nThis manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration as a significant contribution to the scholarship and practice of school administration and K-12 education.  \nKelly A. Andrews  \nBall State University  \nLori G. Boyland  \nBall State University  \nMarilynn M. Quick  \nBall State University  \nThis study examines administrators’perspectives of a state-developed principal evaluation model adopted by a majority of Indiana school districts after legislation mandated policy reform in educator evaluation. Feedback was gathered from public school superintendents (theevaluators) and principals (those being evaluated), with 364 participants. Mixed-methods analyses revealed areas of model utility, implementation challenges, and statistically significant differences between principals’ and superintendents’perceptions of model efficacy. Both superintendents and principals agreed the new model was an improvement over traditional, locally developed models; however, superintendents rated the model higher in efficacy and implementation fidelity. Principal participants did not perceive the new model to be effective for principal evaluation and would not recommend the model to colleagues. Implications for future policy development in educator evaluation include the integration of findings from essential evaluative research. Recommendations for practice include suggestions for facilitating fieldbased support when developing and implementing evaluative models.  \nNCPEA Education Leadership Review, Vol. 17, No. 2– December, 2016 ISSN: 1532-0723 © 2016 National Council of Professors of Educational Administration  \nThe principal’s role is complex and multi-faceted. Research and federal mandates for accountability have attempted to define, categorize, and connect human behavior to the job in order to determine the most effective practices that promote student achievement (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Stronge, 2013) . However, the link between principal evaluation and effective leadership for evaluative purposes continues to elude the education field (Fuller & Hollingsworth, 2013) . The need for deeper understanding is underscored by the lack of empirical evidence to connect evaluation to effective leadership while researchers continue to search for scientifically proven practices (Shelton, 2013) .  \nHistory is replete with educational change efforts and the American educational system has experienced many reforms. Recent reforms have resulted in an increased emphasis on the evaluation of educators due to the ideology that schools, as places for reshaping individuals andreforming society, must improve and educators are significant in this process (Tyack & Cuban, 1995) . Early in the twenty-first century, the No Child Left Behind Act required states to dramatically increase educator evaluative and qualification standards, introducing “highly qualified” accountability (2001) . In 2009, the Race to the Top program required additional evaluative accountability in order for school districts to be eligible for substantial federal grants (Manna & Ryan, 2011) . These educational reform efforts had noteworthy influences on the direction of educational policy regarding the evaluation of educators (Hazi & Rucinski, 2009) .  \nTraditional principal evaluation models have been called into question in terms of fidelity of implementation and actual impacts on principal effectiveness (Davis & Hensley, 1999; New Leaders for New Schools, 2010; Reeves, 2006) . These models were typically summative in nature and characterized by one or two (or sometimes zero) school observations conducted by the principal’s supervisor (usually the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee), followed by a written year-end evaluation (Portin, Feldman, & Knapp, 2006) .  \nIn 2006, Reeves found that traditional principal eval","cbCaipeBYo0HeA7J","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipeBYo0HeA7J","pdf",295843,"English","# Study Overview\n## Participants and Methods\n## Findings and Implications\n# Background on Educational Reform\n## Accountability Mandates\n# Critiques of Traditional Principal Evaluation\n## Fidelity and Summative Nature\n# Evidence Linking Leadership to Achievement\n## Practices for Effective Leadership","[{\"question\":\"Who participated in the study, and how was feedback collected?\",\"answer\":\"The study gathered feedback from public school superintendents (evaluators) and principals (those being evaluated), with 364 participants.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the mixed-methods analysis reveal about perceptions of the new model?\",\"answer\":\"The analysis found areas of model utility and implementation challenges, along with statistically significant differences between principals’ and superintendents’ perceptions of model efficacy.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did principals in the study not recommend the new evaluation model?\",\"answer\":\"Although both groups viewed it as an improvement over traditional models, principals did not perceive the new model as effective for principal evaluation and would not recommend it to colleagues.\"}]","Principal Evaluation in Indiana - Vol. 17 No. 2 - December 2016 | PDF",1792093510]