| Summary: | Thesis (M.Ed.)--Memorial University of Newfoundland, 1996. Education Bibliography: leaves 232-242. The age of accountability puts new pressures on educators. There are increasing calls from every quarter for holding the educational institutions accountable. In such circumstances, it is difficult for the position of the principalship not to catch the public eye. The advocates for accountability assuming that the principal is the, not a major influence on the quality of education in a school (Murphy & Louis, 1994) have started demanding the sound evaluations of principals' effectiveness. Yet there is ample evidence in the literature to suggest that the greater attention to the subject has not led to a convergence of wisdom on how to evaluate principals that would bring maximum benefits in terms of personal and organizational growth. -- This study was undertaken in an attempt to overcome part of current limitation in our knowledge concerning the principal evaluation practices. The first and foremost purpose of this study was to provide information about current principal evaluation practices utilized by the Avalon Consolidated School Board. The study also attempted to explore the perceptions of selected groups of teachers, vice-principals, principals, and board trustees with respect to these practices in an effort to provide a bridge between what is and what should be. -- The primary method of data collection was semi-structured interviews. Other sources of data collection were: (a) documentation from the school boards, schools, principals, Department of Environment and Labour, and Department of Education, (b) follow-up calls to the principals and teachers, and (c) researcher's daily notes. The study was oriented to phenomenology, which provided a conceptual framework for the analysis of the data. -- The major findings of the study led to the following conclusions: (a) the actual evaluation practices are not in conformity with the stipulations of the policy; (b) it is important for assistant superintendents to have clear understanding of the nature of the work and the level at which school principals are working; (c) there appeared to be a communication gap between the school board and its staff with respect to evaluation practices; (d) evaluation, irrespective of the type was not looked at as a beneficial and constructive process; (e) vice-principals and teachers regarded formative evaluation as informal everyday evaluation; (f) principals were willing to make the evaluation process more inclusive by incorporating input from multiple sources, provided that the evaluation package is well put together; (g) broadened work load makes it difficult for principals to perform their teaching duties effectively; this situation heightens the need for properly evaluating the teaching responsibilities of site-administrators and, finally, (h) there is need for adequate administrative and other support services at the school level in view of emerging expectations and needs of the publics served by the schools.
|
|---|