Campus Access Only

All rights reserved. This publication is intended for use solely by faculty, students, and staff of University of the Pacific. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or later developed, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author or the publisher.

Date of Award

1980

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.)

Department

Graduate School

First Advisor

Roger L. Reimer

First Committee Member

Fred Muskal

Second Committee Member

Elmer Clawson

Third Committee Member

Ruth M. Faurot

Fourth Committee Member

John Bahnson

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop a comprehensive system for the evaluation of the elementary school principal which would encompass the following aspects of the position: (1) the competencies of the position, weighted in order of importance; (2) the method of evaluation for each competency; and (3) the evaluator for each competency. The system was designed so that it could be utilized in any urban or suburban elementary school, in any district. It is anticipated that use of the system will provide districts with information useful in guiding the professional growth process and in making decisions regarding transfer, demotion, and promotion. Specifically, the study was designed to answer the following questions: (1) In the evaluation of elementary school principals, what competencies are considered important by teachers, principals, and superintendents?; (2) How does each group compare regarding their perceptions of the relative importance of each competency?; (3) How does each group compare regarding their perceptions of how these competencies should be evaluated?; (4) How does each group compare regarding their perceptions of by whom these competencies should be evaluated?; (5) Are these significant differences between urban and suburban samples regarding what competencies should be evaluated?; (6) Are there significant differences between urban and suburban samples regarding the relative importance of each competency?; (7) Are there significant differences between urban and suburban samples regarding how competencies should be evaluated?; and (8) Are there significant differences between urban and suburban samples regarding by whom competencies should be evaluated?

Pages

265

Included in

Education Commons

Share

COinS