Principal Evaluation and Observation

Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policy

Principal Evaluation and Observation

The state should require annual evaluations with frequent observations of all principals. This goal is ungraded in 2022.

Suggested Citation:
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2022). Principal Evaluation and Observation National Results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set].
Retrieved from: https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/national/Principal-Evaluation-and-Observation-95

Do states require districts to evaluate all principals each year?

2022
2019
Add previous year
Figure details

Yes: AL, AK, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, LA, MD, MN, MS, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY

No: AZ, AR, CA, DE, DC, HI, IL, KS, KY, ME, MA, MI, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, OR, SC, SD, VT, VA, WA, WI

Footnotes
CA A principal in first and second year "may" be evaluated annually. After this period, may evaluate "at regular intervals."
DE New DPAS II, effective July 1, 2023.
NE Only probationary principals are required to "be evaluated at least once each semester."
NV Principals rated highly effective can be evaluated once every other academic year.
NY Evaluations were not required during the 2020-2021 school year.
OH Annually for any employee whose contract will not expire that year. One preliminary and one final evaluation for any employee whose contract will expire that year.
VT State's Guidelines for Teacher and Leader Effectiveness are recommendations, not requirements.
VA Non-probationary principals are to be evaluated informally at least once a year.
WA A comprehensive evaluation involves the assessment of all 8 standards A focused evaluation requires the assessment of one of 8 standards plus "professional growth activities" specifically linked to the selected criteria.
WI Principals new to a district or the profession must complete a one-year evaluation cycle. All others can choose a one-, two-, or three-year evaluation cycle.

Do states require adequate principal observations or site visits?

2022
2019
Add previous year
Figure details

Yes. State requires multiple observations or site visits for all principals.: CT, IL, IN, LA, MS, NM, NJ, NY, OH, TN

Partially. State requires multiple observations or site visits for some principals.: NV, WI

No. State requires observations or site visits but does not explicitly require at least two.: AK, GA, ME, MA, MN, PA

No. State does not require principal observations or site visits.: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, DE, DC, FL, HI, ID, IA, KS, KY, MD, MI, MO, MT, NE, NH, NC, ND, OK, OR, RI, SC, SD, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WY,

Footnotes
CT Four observations for those new to the district, school, or profession, or those who have received a rating of developing or below standard.
DE New DPAS II, effective July 1, 2023
NE Probationary principals must be observed twice per academic year. There are no specifications for non-probationary principals.
NV Probationary principals: In year one: 3x/academic year Rated Effective or Highly Effective: 2x/academic year Rated Developing or Ineffective: 3x/academic year. Non-probationary principals: Rated Effective or Highly Effective: 1x/academic year Rated Effective or Highly Effective for two consecutive years: 1x/ academic year Rated Developing or Ineffective: 3x/academic year.
OR Probationary principals are required to have at least two observations per academic year.
UT State requires "multiple supervisor observations at appropriate intervals," but does not specify an exact number.
VT State's Guidelines for Teacher and Leader Effectiveness are recommendations, not requirements.
WI Principals are on either a one-, two-, or three-year evaluation cycle. One announced and two announced or unannounced "sampling visits" are required during the "summary year." The summary year is the final year of the observation cycle.

Updated: June 2019

Research rationale

Research demonstrates that there is a clear link between school leadership and school outcomes.[1] Principals foster school improvement by shaping school goals, policies and practices, and social and organizational structures.[2] Principals vary significantly in their effectiveness, and research suggests that high-quality principals positively affect student achievement, in-school discipline, parents' perceptions of schools, and school climates.[3] Further, principals affect teacher retention and recruitment;[4] effective principals are more adept at retaining effective teachers and removing ineffective teachers.[5] The time principals spend on organizational management, instructional programming, and teacher evaluation is critically important for positive effects on teachers and students.[6] Because principals are an essential component of creating successful schools, their effectiveness should be regularly evaluated by trained evaluators on systems that include objective measures. Such systems will help to ensure that all principals receive the feedback and support necessary to improve their practice and, ultimately, student and school outcomes.


[1] Clifford, M., Hansen, U. J., & Wraight, S. (2014). Practical guide to designing comprehensive principal evaluation systems: A tool to assist in the development of principal evaluation systems. Center on Great Teachers and Leaders.; Rice, J. K. (2010). Principal effectiveness and leadership in an era of accountability (Brief 8). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.; Glasman, N. S., & Heck, R. H. (1992). The changing leadership role of the principal: Implications for principal assessment. Peabody Journal of Education, 68(1), 5-24.
[2] Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
[3] Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2012). Estimating the effect of leaders on public sector productivity: The case of school principals (No. w17803). National Bureau of Economic Research.; Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L. Anderson, S. E., Michlin, M., & Mascall, B. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement/University of Minnesota and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto, 42, 50.; Clark, D., Martorell, P., & Rockoff, J. (2009). School principals and school performance (No. w17803). National Bureau of Economic Research.; Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: A review of research for the Learning from Leadership Project. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
[4] Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Education Research Journal, 48(2), 303-333; Kimball, S. (2011). Strategic talent management for principals. Strategic management of human capital in education: Improving instructional practice and student learning in schools (pp. 133-152). New York, NY: Routledge Publishing; Rice, J. K. (2010). Principal effectiveness and leadership in an era of accountability (Brief 8). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.; Clark, D., Martorell, P., & Rockoff, J. (2009). School principals and school performance (No. w17803). National Bureau of Economic Research. 
[5] Beteille, T., Kalogrides, D., Loeb, S. (2009). Effective schools: Managing the recruitment, development, and retention of high-quality teachers (Working Paper 37). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
[6] Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091-1123.; Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal's time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491-523.; Catano, N., & Stronge, J. H. (2007). What do we expect of school principals? Congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(4), 379-399.