principal s uperviso r performance sttandards ps performance standards (version 1.0... · ipal...

The PrincDesign Lunderstanschool-leexpertiseimproved District l

Dw

Man

Inpr

How we Consistenknowledgreview ofoutcomespeople otoffice wowebinar a

Two

pract2012

1 Version 1subject to rsend comm2 These ind Princip Princip Resear

resear& Hol1995;

PR

cipal SupervLab (DL2) wnd what to eevel improvee, to help lead performanc

eaders can uDefine and deways consisteMeasure prinnd real resulnform how thrincipal supe

developed tnt with the mge in the fielf research ons. We also cther than theork and teachand paper (H

peer-reviewices of princ; Honig & R

1.0 has undergorevision. The D

ments on these

dicators includepals’ engagempal and other prchers’ analysich as associatelum, 2003; BroSmagorinsky,

RINCIPAL S

visor Performwith support f

xpect of theiements. We dders locate tce.

use these stanevelop conseent with resecipal supervlts in schoolshey focus thervisors be s

the PSPS mission of Dld, these stann the relationonsulted res

eir supervisohing-and-leaHonig, Raine

wed journal acipal superviRainey, 2014

one the rigorouDL2 thanks Thstandards to dl

e: ment in progressprofessionals’ ris of the consised with helpingown, Collins, &Cook, & John

SUPERVISO

V

© University

mance Standfrom The Wir principal sdifferentiatetheir principa

ndards in vaensus aboutearch on prinvisors’ growts; and

heir professiosuccessful.

DL2 to help dndards are renship betweeearch on the

ors and the brarning improey, & Haben

articles from isors with po4).2 These pu

us review procehe Wallace [email protected]

sively more chreports of princstency betweeng adults deepen& Duguid, 1989son, 2003; Tha

OR PERFOR

Version 1.01

y of Washingt

dards (PSPS)Wallace Found

supervisors we principal sual supervisor

arious ways,the principa

ncipal supervth over time

onal develop

district leadeesearch-baseen principal e provision oroader litera

ovement. Thinicht, Forthco

one researchositive schooublications, b

ess described iundation for its.

allenging instrucipal superviso

n principal supen their professio9; Lave, 1998; arp & Gallimor

RMANCE ST

ton, 2014

), developed dations, aimwhen researcupervisors’ prs on a grow

including toal supervisorvisor effectivin terms rel

pment and ot

ers understaned. We startesupervision

of supports foature on the ris research roming), reve

h study assool results (Hobased on rese

in this paper busupport to this

ructional leaderors’ work and eervisors practiconal practice (Rogoff, Baker

re, 1991; Weng

TANDARD

by the Distrm to help distr

ch associatepractice alon

wth trajectory

o: s’ role in theveness; evant to thei

ther supports

nd and build ed with a com and positive

for principalsrelationship review, summealed the fol

ociate particuonig, et al., 2earch condu

ut will be furths project. All u

rship activitiesefficacy, and ces and practicsee for examplr-Sennett, Lacager, 1998).

DS

rict Leadershrict leaders s their work

ng four levely toward

eir district in

ir particular

s to help

from the latmprehensivee school s’ growth bybetween cenmarized in allowing:

ular work 2010; Honig

ucted by DL2

her field tested users are welco

s,

ces identified inle, Collins, Broas, & Goldsmit

hip

k with s of

n

roles

test e

y ntral a

g, 2 and

and is ome to

n own, th,

fundestudeeffectimprolimitesupercorroto resprincambitotherrelatiinstru

The istructprincto sugtheir condidispoaction

The ioffice“schoinstrudifferOur ofor im

The sofficeengag

3 For moreoutcomes, Larson, Ma4 For more2009; DarlMarsh et a

ed by The Went learning btively help thove student led guides forrvisors reporoborate the sesults in schooipal supervitious curricu

r studies on pionships anductional lead

importance otures, broad ipal superviggest that thbroad activiitions may b

ositions suchns that help

importance oe. Many studool district” uctional visiorent central oown researchmproved sch

success of pre. Supports fge in specifi

e on the connecplease see, forarcoulides, 199

e on how princiling-Hammondl., 2005; Peters

Wallace Founby helping pheir teacherslearning.3 Twr the developrted what theelf-reports wols (Councilsors may inhular reform (principal lear

d work in prinders.4

of focusing ocategories osion and howe moves staf

ities like creabe necessary h as “risk-takimproved re

of distinguishdies of centrain general toon and alignoffice staff mh reveals how

hool support

rincipal supefor schools, c practices i

ction between pr example: Blas90; Supovitz, S

ipals develop ad et al., 2007; Fson, 2002.

ndation, undeprincipals gros improve thwo other stupment of staey do and howith other evl of Great Cihibit positive(Hubbard, Mrning that likncipal learni

on practices—of activities, w central offff make day-ating a visiobut not suff

king” or “streesults and are

hing principal offices an

o engage in vning resourcemay need to w distinct pr(Honig, et a

ervisors mayand principan the contex

principals’ instse & Blase, 19Sirinides, & Ma

as instructionalFink & Resnick

erscore that pow as instruche quality of udies addressandards. Oneow their distrvidence or coity Schools, e school-leve

Mehan, & Stekewise highling commun

—the movespersonality

fices support-to-day may n or providin

ficient for imengths-focuse notoriously

pal supervisiond teaching-avarious broaes to improvwork in diff

ractices in dial., 2010).

y depend on als in particuxt of a centra

tructional leade99; Grissom, Lay, 2011; Robi

l leaders, pleasek, 2001; Galluc

© U

principal supctional leade

f their classros principal sue involved a ricts supportonnect the w2013). The oel results suc

ein, 2006). Olight how pa

nities relate t

s principal sutraits, or dist instructiona

y matter moreng professio

mproved resused” may or y hard to me

on from otheand-learningad activities sved instructioferent ways tifferent parts

specific chaular, improveal office that

ership and impLoeb, & Mastein, Lloyd, & R

e see, for examcci & Swanson

University of W

pervisors maers—principoom instructupervisors bsurvey in w

t them, but thwork of princ

other study rch as the imp

Our research articular coacto principals

upervisors mspositions. Tal improveme to school-l

onal developults. Likewis

may not traneasure.

er roles withg improvemesuch as creaton, thereby oto realize ims of the centr

anges in the re when princis also trans

proved teachinger, 2013; Heck,Rowe, 2008.

mple: Barnes etn, 2008; Hubba

P

Washington, 2

atter to imprpals who tion, and, in ut provided

which principhe report did

cipal supervirevealed howplementationfindings refching ’ developme

make—not he research

ment is beginlevel results ment; the lat

se, particularnslate into

hin the centraent call on thting an obscuring ho

mproved resural office ma

rest of the cecipal supervisforming in

g and student , 1992; Heck,

t al, 2010; Cityard et al., 2006

2014

roved

turn,

pal d not sors w n of

flect

ent as

on nning

than tter

r

al he

ow ults. atter

entral isors

y et al., ;

certareseacentrinstrurespochangunpro

Based on Drew Focu

princ Resis

work Deve

instrusuperof the

We then some timWe askedincorpora We then PrincipalLicensurState Schcentral ofconductePrincipalimportan Through revise anthe stand

5 The workcommit to all central than an obs

in ways to barch shows hal office uniuctional focuonsibilities oge and improoductive way

n these findinw heavily on

sed only on ipals’ instru

sted includink/responsibilieloped materuments (e.g.,rvisors’ abilie central offi

worked withme in buildingd them to prated their su

consulted exl Supervisorse Consortiumhool Officersffice leaders

ed focus groul Supervisor nt suggestion

these procesnd refine the dards.

k group adoptetheir own contoffice staff, beservable practi

better supporhow the workits do not shius. We also hf other centrovement by ys.

ngs, in develour own resobservable p

uctional leadeng standards ities of otherrials (e.g., a b, Annual Surity to realizeice.

h practitioneg out the rolovide input ggestions in

xtensively ws Performanm (ISLLC) Rs, aimed to us who supervups and othePerformanc

ns to improve

sses, we prostandards as

d our standardtinuous learnin

ecause it does nice, we chose n

rt schools (Hk of principaift their workhypothesize ral office depenabling oth

loping the Dsearch; practices of pership as thefor principa

r central offibackground rvey of Princ

e the standard

ers from distrle of principaon the scope

nto a subsequ

with policymace StandardsRefresh procupdate a partvise school per outreach ee Standards.e the empha

duced versios available re

s with the adding and improvenot yet rest on anot to add that

Honig, et al., al supervisork to align withat when p

partments orhers in the ce

DL2 PSPSs, w

principal supe main relevaal supervisorice staff; andvideo on thecipal Supervds depends o

ricts of diffeal supervisore, wording, auent version

akers, practis Working Gcess. This prt of the ISLLprincipals. Toefforts includ. As part of tsis and word

on 1.0 of theesearch expa

ition of one othement. While wa research basestandard to our

© U

2010; Honigrs can stall orith the princirincipal super staff, they mentral office

we:

pervisors relant and realirs that actuald e developmevisors) whichon significan

erent sizes wrs as a learniand relevancof the stand

itioners and Group of the rocess, conveLC standardso inform theding careful their reviewding of the D

e standards (bands and we

her standard cawe agree that sue and because irs.

University of W

g, 2013). Our derail outriipal superviservisors formmay impedeto continue

lated to impristic proximally relate to t

ent of the stah reinforce thnt aligned ch

who had beening support

ce of the standards.

other membInterstate S

ened by the Cs related speeir process, treviews of D, work group

DL2 standard

below). We learn from h

alling on princiuch an orientatit reflects a per

P

Washington, 2

ur current ight when otsors’ dedicatmally take one central offic

to perform i

rovements inate outcome;the

andards) andhat the princ

hanges in the

n engaged fofor principalndards and

bers of the chool LeadeCouncil of Ccifically to

this group DL2’s then-dp members mds.5

will continuhow districts

ipal supervisortion is importarsonality trait r

2014

ther ted n the ce in

n ;

d cipal e rest

or ls.

ers Chief

draft made

ue to s use

rs to ant for rather

ElementThe DL2

Stand

when

LevealongSmagrobuslearnthey a

Sugg

consiconsiprincindicmust examdediccalenleadeprinccomb

Table of

One(wit DL2 Sug

*Pages n

ts of the DL22 PSPS inclu

dards. Thesn they suppor

ls of practicg four dimengorinsky, & st in that theying trajectorare measurab

gested indicaider using toistent with eaipal superviator providebe used in c

mple, a princicate themselvndar reviews ers rely only ipal supervi

bination of in

f Contents

e-page Overvth general de

2 Principal S

gested Indic

not numbered

2 Principal ude three mai

e six statemrt principals

ce. We distinnsions highligValencia, 19y have been ries. These dble using me

ators. This e measure theach standardsors’ progre

es an adequatconjunction wipal supervisves to princisuggest theyon interviewsor’s performndicators pro

view of Stanefinitions of

Supervisor Pe

cators

d below to fa

Supervisorin elements:

ents articula’ growth as

nguish how wghted in part999; Wertschobserved ac

distinctions aethods acces

element inclue extent to wd. We basedss as well aste measure owith others fsor may repoipals’ growthy spend less

ws and/or a smance alongovides a com

ndards levels of per

erformance

acilitate clea

r Performan

ate what reseinstructional

well principaticular strandh, 1991). Thcross diverseare also partissible to man

udes a rangewhich their p

these suggess feedback frof progress afor them to bort in intervieh as instructithan 50% o

survey, they g Standards 1mplete pictur

rformance)

Standards

an copying.

© U

nce Standar

earch suggesl leaders.

al supervisods of learnin

hese researche settings as icularly pertiny practition

e of indicatorprincipal supstions on ourom expert palong each stbe useful meews and a suional leadersf their time owill signific

1 and 6. Leare of progres

University of W

rds (PSPS)

sts principal

rs engage inng theory (e.h-based distirelevant wayinent to this

ners.

rs district leaervisors eng

ur own experpractitionerstandard and

easures of prurvey that ths; however, oon such worcantly misunaders should ss in their set

P

Washington, 2

supervisors

n those practig., Grossma

inctions are ys to captureproject sinc

aders might gage in workrience measu. No one some indica

ractice. For heir job is to observationsrk. If districtnderstand thiconsider whtting.

Page 5

Pages 6

Pages 9

2014

do

ices an,

e e

k uring

ators

s and t is hat

6-8

9-23

STAinstru STAwork STAprinccommleade STAeach or taiinstru STAevaluleade STAcentrand p

ANDARD 1. Dediuctional leaders

ANDARD 2. Engak with principals t

ANDARD 3. Engacipal communitiemunities, networkers

ANDARD 4. Systprincipal’s capac

ilor their approacuctional leaders

ANDARD 5. Engauation process in ers

ANDARD 6. Selecral office work prprincipals focus o

DL

icates their time t

ages in teaching pto help principals

ages in teaching ps of practice (e.gks) to help princip

ematically uses mcity for instructioch to helping their

ages principals inways that help pr

ctively and straterocesses to maximon principals’ gro

L2 Principal

to helping princip

practices in their s grow as instruct

practices while le., professional leapals grow as instr

multiple forms of onal leadership to r principals grow

n the formal distririncipals grow as

egically participatmize the extent toowth as instruction

Supervisor (

One-pa

© Universit

pals grow as

one-on-one tional leaders

eading arning ructional

evidence of differentiate as

ict principal instructional

tes in other o which they nal leaders

(PS) Perform

age Overview

ty of Washington,

mance Standa

, 2014

- Does not enga

- Talks about tstandard but thstandard

ENG- Regularly enstandard - Regularly deassociated wit- Regularly depractices, in cto principals’

ENG- Occasionally- Does not yet what practices- Does not yet why the practicontribute to p

ards 1.0

NOT ADOage in the practic

ADOPTING their work in wayheir actual behav

GAGING with UNngages in practice

emonstrates undeth this standard inemonstrates undecombination with growth as instruc

GAGING at a SUy behaves in waysconsistently dem

s associated with consistently dem

ices, in combinatiprincipals’ growt

OPTING ces identified in th

A LABEL ys consistent with vior does not yet r

NDERSTANDINes consistent with

erstanding of whanvolve

erstanding of whyother supports, cctional leaders

URFACE LEVELs reflective of the

monstrate understathis standard inv

monstrate understaion with other supth as instructiona

he standard

the reflect the

NG h the

at practices

y the contribute

L standard

anding of volve anding of pports, l leaders

StandaDedicatime toprincipgrow ainstrucleaders

StandaEngageteachinpractictheir onone woprinciphelp prgrow ainstrucleaders

No

ard 1. ates their o helping pals as tional

s

A PS this lelittle tactiviprincias insleadenot tawork terms

ard 2. es in ng es in ne-on-ork with pals to rincipals as tional

s

A PS this leengagprincione; wtheir typicadirectprincimonitprincicompcompthat pshoulthems

D

t Adopting

who works at evel spends to no time on ities related to ipals’ growth structional rs and does

alk about their in these

s.

Athabdhginleacdth

who works at evel rarely ges with ipals one-on-when they do actions ally involve ting ipals, toring ipals’

pliance, or pleting tasks principals ld be doing selves.

Athaboptedapac

DL2 Principa

Adopting a Label

A PS who works at his level talks bout their work as edicated to elping principals row as nstructional eaders but their ctual use of time oes not yet reflect his focus.

A PS who works at his level talks bout their one-on-ne work with rincipals as eaching, but they o not yet take this pproach in their ctual practice.

al Supervisor

Enga

A PS who work-Focuses at leasgrowth as instrudedicate their timnon-instructionacontribute to advinstructional lea -Does not consiwhat is involvedprincipals grow -Does not consiwhy dedicating instructional lea

A PS who work-Talks about theteaching and engwith that orientatheir main appro - Does not yet cwhat teaching mhelp principals g -Does not yet cowhy to take a tework with princmoves in those sinstructional lea

r (PS) Perfor

aging at a Surfa

ks at this level: t some of their tim

uctional leaders butme to this focus; fral work that does nvancing principals

aders.

stently reflect that d in dedicating theias instructional lea

stently reflect that themselves to prin

aders is important to

ks at this level: eir one-on-one worgages in some pracation. However, teaoach in those settin

onsistently reflect moves in their one-ogrow as instruction

onsistently reflect taching approach in

cipals or why particsettings may help p

aders.

rmance Stand

ce Level

e on principals’ t does not yet fully requently engages iot obviously ’ growth as

they understand ir time to helping aders.

they understand cipals’ growth as o such results.

rk with principals actices consistent aching is not yet ngs.

that they understanon-one work mightnal leaders.

that they understandn their one-on-one cular teaching principals grow as

dards 1.0

Eng

in

A PS who wo-Maximizes thinstructional lthe PS spendsthe PS filters atime based onactivities will instructional l -Regularly demunderstandingtime to helpinleaders. -Regularly demunderstandingprincipals’ grosuch results.

as

nd t

nd

A PS who wo-Regularly masettings to supleaders. -Regularly demunderstandingapproach in th –Regularly deunderstandingtheir one-on-oparticular teaccontribute to pleaders.

© University o

gaging with Und

rks at this level: heir time on principleaders. Such a focus 100% of their timall decisions about

n the extent to whichelp them advance

leaders in tangible w

monstrates a sufficg of what is entailedng principals grow a

monstrates a sufficg of why dedicatingowth as instruction

rks at this level: akes teaching movepport principals’ gr

monstrates a sufficg of what is entailedheir one-on-one wo

emonstrates a sufficg of why to take a tone work with princching moves in thoprincipals’ growth

of Washington, 20

derstanding

pals’ growth as us does not mean the in schools. Rathehow they spend th

ch engaging in e principals’ growthways.

cient and deepeningd in dedicating theias instructional

cient and deepeningg their time to nal leaders matters t

es in one-on-one rowth as instruction

cient and deepeningd in taking a teachiork with principals.

cient and deepeningeaching approach icipals and why se settings may as instructional

014

hat er, heir

h as

g ir

g

to

nal

g ing

g in

© University of Washington, 2014

Not Adopting Adopting a

Label Engaging at a Surface Level Engaging with Understanding

Standard 3. Engages in teaching practices while leading principal communities of practice to help principals grow as instructional leaders

A PS who works at this level does not convene their principals in meetings that operate as communities of practice.

A PS who works at this level convenes their principals and talks about their approach in those convenings as teaching principals to grow as instructional leaders. However, they do not yet take this approach in their actual practice.

A PS who works at this level: -Convenes their principals regularly, talks about their approach in those convenings as teaching, and engages in some practices consistent with that stance. However, teaching is not yet their main approach in those settings. -Does not yet consistently reflect that they understand what teaching moves in their principal convenings might help principals grow as instructional leaders. -Does not yet consistently reflect that they understand why to take a teaching approach in their principal convenings or why particular teaching moves in those settings may help principals grow as instructional leaders.

A PS who works at this level: -Regularly convenes their principals, talks about their approach in those convenings as teaching and makes teaching moves in those settings to support principals’ growth as instructional leaders. -Regularly demonstrates sufficient and deepening understanding of what taking a teaching approach in their principal convenings entails. -Regularly demonstrates a sufficient and deepening understanding of why to take a teaching approach in their principal convenings and why particular teaching moves in those settings may contribute to principals’ growth as instructional leaders.

Standard 4. Systematically uses multiple forms of evidence of each principal’s capacity for instructional leadership to differentiate or tailor their approach to helping their principals grow as instructional leaders

A PS who works at this level does not systematically use evidence of principals’ instructional leadership practice to differentiate their approach to their work with principals.

A PS who works at this level reports they routinely work with evidence about principals’ instructional leadership practice to differentiate their approach to their work with principals but their actual practice does not yet reflect that emphasis.

A PS who works at this level: -Collects some evidence about their principals’ capacity for instructional leadership and is beginning to use it to differentiate their work with principals. However, their evidence collection may not be systematic nor from multiple sources related to principals’ instructional leadership practice and they do not demonstrate that they are regularly using that evidence to differentiate their approach to their work with principals. -Does not yet consistently demonstrate understanding of what is entailed in systematically using multiple forms of evidence of each principal’s instructional leadership practice to frequently differentiate their approach to supporting them in their growth as instructional leaders. -Does not yet consistently demonstrate understanding of why using multiple forms of evidence about each principal’s instructional leadership practice to differentiate their approach may contribute to principals’ growth as instructional leaders.

A PS who works at this level: -Regularly systematically collects multiple forms of evidence about each principal’s instructional leadership practice and uses this evidence to differentiate their work with principals. -Regularly demonstrates sufficient and deepening understanding of what is entailed in systematically using multiple forms of evidence of each principal’s instructional leadership practice to differentiate their approach to supporting them in their growth as instructional leaders. -Regularly demonstrates sufficient and deepening understanding of why using multiple forms of evidence about each principal’s instructional leadership practice to differentiate their approach to supporting them may contribute to principals’ growth as instructional leaders.


Not Adopting Adopting a

Label Engaging at a Surface Level Engaging with Understanding

Standard 5. Engages principals in the formal district principal evaluation process in ways that help principals grow as instructional leaders

A PS who works at this level engages with the formal district principal evaluation process from a hierarchical and supervisory stance inconsistent with supporting principals’ growth as instructional leaders.

A PS who works at this level says they engage principals in the formal district principal evaluation process in ways that support principals’ growth as instructional leaders but their actual practice does not yet reflect that approach.

A PS who works at this level: -Occasionally engages principals in the formal district principal evaluation process in ways that support principals’ growth as instructional leaders. -Does not yet consistently demonstrate that they understand what is entailed in engaging principals in the formal district principal evaluation process in ways that support principals’ growth as instructional leaders. -Does not yet consistently demonstrate that they understand why to engage principals in the formal district principal evaluation process in ways that support principals’ growth as instructional leaders.

A PS who works at this level: -Regularly engages principals in the formal district principal evaluation process in ways that support principals’ growth as instructional leaders; they complete evaluation reports as a by-product rather than a driver of that engagement. -Regularly demonstrates sufficient and deepening understanding of what is entailed in engaging principals in the formal district principal evaluation process in ways that support principals’ growth as instructional leaders. -Regularly demonstrates significant and deepening understanding of why to engage principals in the formal district principal evaluation process in ways that support principals’ growth as instructional leaders.

Standard 6. Selectively and strategically participates in other central office work processes to maximize the extent to which they and principals focus on principals’ growth as instructional leaders

A PS who works at this level does not approach his/her work with the rest of the central office selectively or strategically, choosing to engage with work processes that do not maximize the extent to which they and their principals focus on principals’ growth as instructional leaders.

A PS who works at this level reports that he/she approaches his/her work with the rest of the central office selectively and strategically, but their actual practice does not yet reflect that orientation.

A PS who works at this level: -Approaches some of their work with the rest of the central office selectively and strategically but still frequently engages in other central office work processes that do not maximize the extent to which they and their principals focus on principals’ growth as instructional leaders. -Does not yet consistently reflect that they understand what is entailed in participating in other central office work processes selectively and strategically to maximize the extent to which they and their principals focus on principals’ growth as instructional leaders. -Does not yet consistently reflect that they understand why they should selectively and strategically participate in central office work processes to help them maximize the extent to which they and their principals focus on principals’ growth as instructional leaders.

A PS who works at this level: -Regularly participates in other central office work processes only selectively and strategically to maximize the extent to which they and their principals focus on principals’ growth as instructional leaders. -Regularly demonstrates a sufficient and deepening understanding of what is entailed in selectively and strategically participating in other central office work processes to maximize the extent to which they and their principals focus on principals’ growth as instructional leaders. -Regularly demonstrates a sufficient and deepening understanding of why they should only selectively and strategically participate in other central office work processes to help them maximize the extent to which they and their principals focus on principals’ growth as instructional leaders.

S

D

DLSuPr

DLSuPrSu

Standard 1: D

DATA SOURCE

L2 Annual urvey of rincipals

L2 Annual urvey of rincipal upervisors

D

Dedicates the

E Not Ad

‐ Principals retheir school inand inconsistecourse of the ‐Standard 1 In ‐Principal g ‐IL focus in

‐ PS reports spto no time oninstructional l ‐ PS reports thshould spend of their time ogrowth as instleaders ‐ Standard 1 I ‐Principal g ‐IL focus in

DL2 Principa

eir time to he

dopting port PS visited nfrequently ently over the year

ndex scores: growth index dex

‐sit

‐

pending little principals’ leadership

hat they less than 50% on principals’ tructional

ndex scores: growth index dex

‐miio

‐spl

‐

al Supervisor

Sugge

© Universit

elping princip

Adopting a

‐ Principals report Pschool infrequentlynconsistently over the year

‐ Standard 1 Index ‐Principal growth ‐IL focus index

‐ PS reports spendimore time on princnstructional leaderndicated by principobservations

‐ PS reports that thspend 50‐75% of thprincipals’ growth aeaders

‐ Standard 1 Index ‐Principal growth ‐IL focus index

r (PS) Perfor

ested Indicator

ty of Washington,

pals grow as

a Label

PS visited their y and the course of

scores: h index

‐tay

‐

ng significantly cipals’ rship than pal reports and

ey should heir time on as instructional

scores: h index

‐5pi

‐spi

‐

rmance Stand

rs

, 2014

instructiona

Engaging at aLeve

‐ Principals report Ptheir school approxa month over the cyear

‐ Standard 1 Index ‐Principal growt ‐IL focus index

‐ PS reports spendi50‐75% of their timprincipals’ growth anstructional leade

‐ PS reports that thspend 50‐75% of thprincipals’ growth anstructional leade

‐ Standard 1 Index ‐Principal growt ‐IL focus index

dards 1.0

al leaders

a Surface el PS visited ximately once course of the

scores: h index

‐scov

‐

ing between me on as rs

hey should heir time on as rs

scores: h index

‐7gr

‐ mple

‐

EngagingUndersta

Principals report Pchool at least everyver the course of t

Standard 1 Index s ‐Principal growth ‐IL focus index

PS reports spendin5% of their time onrowth as instructio

PS reports that themore than 75% of thrincipals’ growth aeaders

Standard 1 Index s ‐Principal growth ‐IL focus index

g with anding PS visits their y other week he year

scores: h index

ng more than n principals’ onal leaders

ey should spend heir time on s instructional

scores: h index


Systematic Observations (e.g., using the DL2 Whisper Observation Platform)

‐ PS focuses majority of their time not on principals’ instructional leadership

‐ PS focuses majority of their time not on principals’ instructional leadership

‐ PS focuses majority of their time on principals’ instructional leadership

‐ PS focuses almost all their time on principals’ instructional leadership

Interviews and Conversations

‐ PS talks about their job as about something other than supporting principals as instructional leaders ‐ Other central office staff report that the PS is always available for activities not clearly in support of principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ PS talks about their job as dedicated to supporting principals as instructional leaders but can provide few concrete, relevant examples from their own experience that reflect that they actually take this focus ‐ Other central office staff report that the PS is always available for activities not clearly in support of principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ PS talks about their job as dedicated to supporting principals as instructional leaders but does not clearly articulate what that entails or why such a focus is important to principals’ growth as instructional leaders ‐ Other central office staff report that the PS frequently declines requests to participate in other central office activities, but they are not always clear why

‐ PS talks about their job as dedicated to supporting principals as instructional leaders and clearly articulates what that entails and why doing so is important to principals’ growth as instructional leaders ‐ Other central office staff report that the PS always declines requests to participate in other central office activities not clearly in support of principals’ growth as instructional leaders

Calendar Analyses/Time‐tracking Systems

‐ PS spends 10% or less of their time on tasks related to principals’ instructional leadership ‐ PS spends the majority of their time monitoring principals’ compliance

‐ PS spends 10‐50% of their time on tasks related to principals’ instructional leadership ‐ PS spends the majority of their time monitoring principals’ compliance

‐ PS spends at least 50% of their time on tasks related to principals’ instructional leadership ‐ PS spends between 25‐50% of their time monitoring principals’ compliance

‐ PS spends 90‐100% of their time supporting principals’ growth as instructional leaders ‐ PS spends very little to no time monitoring principals’ compliance

Document Reviews

See above for calendar reviews

See above for calendar reviews See above for calendar reviews See above for calendar reviews


Standard 2: Engages in teaching practices in their one-on-one work with principals to help principals grow as instructional leaders DATA SOURCE Not Adopting

Adopting a Label Engaging at a Surface

Level Engaging with Understanding

DL2 Annual Survey of Principals

‐ Standard 2 Index scores: ‐Modeling (1:1) index ‐Tool use (1:1) index ‐Brokering (1:1) index ‐Joint work (1:1) index




DL2 Annual Survey of Principal Supervisors

‐ Standard 2 Index scores: ‐Teaching orientation index ‐Teaching practices (1:1) index





In their one‐on‐one interactions with principals, PS often: ‐Engages in directive or evaluative behavior ‐Tells principals what should be their main focus ‐Engages in the same work with most or all principals irrespective of their individual capacity ‐Jumps over principals to work directly with teachers ‐Fails to bridge principals to resources to help them grow as instructional leaders ‐Fails to buffer principals from distractions that interfere with their growth as instructional leaders

In their one‐on‐one interactions with principals, PS often ‐Engages in directive or evaluative behavior ‐Tells principals what should be their main focus ‐Engages in the same work with most or all principals irrespective of their individual capacity ‐Jumps over principals to work directly with teachers ‐Fails to bridge principals to resources to help them grow as instructional leaders ‐Fails to buffer principals from distractions that interfere with their growth as instructional leaders

In their one‐on‐one interactions with principals, PS at least occasionally engages in teaching practices (e.g., in box at right and detailed in Honig, 2012) associated with helping principals grow as instructional leaders

‐ PS regularly engages in teaching practices associated with helping principals grow as instructional leaders (e.g., below and detailed in Honig, 2012) ‐ When PS encounters a non‐routine situation in their one‐on‐one interactions with principals, PS takes a teaching approach in ways appropriate to the situation and logically connected to principals’ growth as instructional leaders Teaching practices: ‐Engaging in “joint work” with principals by making moves to help principals deepen the extent to which they value their growth as instructional leaders and see the PS as mutually accountable for their growth


‐Modeling instructional leadership actions and thinking ‐Developing and using tools—various materials that engage principals in thinking and acting in ways consistent with instructional leadership ‐Bridging principals to resources to strengthen their instructional leadership ‐Buffering principals from conditions that interfere with their instructional leadership


‐ PS talks about their one‐on‐one work with principals in such terms as monitoring, evaluating, and ensuring principals implement the superintendents’ priorities

‐ PS talks about their one‐on‐one work with principals in ways consistent with taking a teaching approach

‐ PS talks about their one‐on‐one work with principals in ways consistent with taking a teaching approach, but does not clearly articulate what that entails or why doing so is important to principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ PS talks about their one‐on‐one work with principals in ways consistent with taking a teaching approach and consistently articulates what engaging in these teaching practices entails and why doing so may help their principals grow as instructional leaders

Calendar Analyses, Time‐tracking Systems

‐ Time slots for engagements with principals are too short for a meaningful teaching‐and‐learning partnership

‐ Time slots for engagements with principals are too short for a meaningful teaching‐and‐learning partnership

‐ Time slots for engagements with principals allow a sufficient amount of time for a meaningful teaching‐and‐learning partnership

‐ Time slots for engagements with principals allow a sufficient amount of time for a meaningful teaching‐and‐learning partnership

Document Reviews ‐ PS does not produce or track learning goals and learning plans for their one‐on‐one meetings with principals

‐ PS does not produce or track learning goals and learning plans for their one‐on‐one meetings with principals

‐ PS produces and tracks learning goals and learning plans for some of their one‐on‐one meetings with principals ‐Learning plans not always clearly related to the learning goals

‐ PS produces and tracks learning goals and learning plans for all of their one‐on‐one meetings with principals tied to a clear scope‐and sequence for each principal ‐ Learning plans rest on clear rationale for why particular plans may help each principal grow as an instructional leader


Standard 3: Engages in teaching practices while leading principal communities of practice (e.g., professional learning communities, networks) to help principals grow as instructional leaders DATA SOURCE Not Adopting




‐ Principals report attending few principal meetings ‐ Principals report few principal meetings take place at schools ‐ Principals report that their PS rarely leads principal meetings ‐ Standard 3 Index scores: ‐Modeling (COP) index ‐Tool use (COP) index ‐Brokering (COP) index ‐Joint work (COP) index ‐Convening index

‐ Principals report attending fewer than half the principal meetings ‐ Principals report fewer than half of the principal meetings take place at schools ‐ Principals report that their PS leads fewer than half of the principal meetings ‐ Standard 3 Index scores: ‐Modeling (COP) index ‐Tool use (COP) index ‐Brokering (COP) index ‐Joint work (COP) index ‐Convening index

‐ Principals report attending most of the principal meetings ‐ Principals report that most principal meetings take place at schools ‐ Principals report that their PS leads most principal meetings ‐ Standard 3 Index scores: ‐Modeling (COP) index ‐Tool use (COP) index ‐Brokering (COP) index ‐Joint work (COP) index ‐Convening index

‐ Principals report attending all principal meetings ‐ Principals report nearly all principal meetings take place at schools ‐ Principals report that their PS leads all principal meetings ‐ Standard 3 Index scores: ‐Modeling (COP) index ‐Tool use (COP) index ‐Brokering (COP) index ‐Joint work (COP) index ‐Convening index


‐ PS reports leading a few of the principal meetings ‐ PS reports few principal meetings take place at schools ‐ Standard 3 Index scores: ‐Teaching practices (COP) index ‐Convening index

‐ PS reports leading fewer than half of the principal meetings ‐ PS reports that fewer than half of principal meetings take place at schools ‐ Standard 3 Index scores: ‐Teaching practices (COP) index ‐Convening index

‐ PS reports leading most of the principal meetings, whether or not they involve other facilitators ‐ PS reports that most principal meetings take place at schools ‐ Standard 3 Index scores: ‐Teaching practices (COP) index ‐Convening index

‐ PS reports that they lead all the meetings, whether or not they involve other facilitators ‐ PS reports that all principal meetings take place at schools ‐ Standard 3 Index scores: ‐Teaching practices (COP) index ‐Convening index



PS often: ‐ Takes a directive or didactic approach in their meetings, spending significant time delivering information to principals or leaving principals to talk to each other with little learning support ‐ Frequently allows meetings to be interrupted by district matters not related to supporting principals’ growth as instructional leaders ‐ Turns facilitation of meetings over to outside guests

PS often:‐ Takes a directive or didactic approach in their meetings, spending significant time delivering information to principals or leaving principals to talk to each other with little learning support ‐ Frequently allows meetings to be interrupted by district matters not related to supporting principals’ growth as instructional leaders ‐ Turns facilitation of meetings over to outside guests

‐ PS occasionally engages in teaching practices in their principal meetings (e e.g., to the right and detailed in Honig & Rainey, 2014) associated with helping principals grow as instructional leaders ‐ Occasionally allows meetings to be interrupted by district matters not related to supporting principals’ growth as instructional leaders ‐ Occasionally mediates participation by outside facilitators to help guests take a teaching approach in their running of the meetings

‐ PS frequently engages in teaching practices in their principal meetings (e.g., below and detailed in Honig & Rainey, 2014) associated with helping principals grow as instructional leaders ‐ Rarely, if ever, allows meetings to be interrupted by district matters not related to supporting principals’ growth as instructional leaders ‐ Mediates all participation by outside facilitators to help guests take a teaching approach in their running of the meetings ‐ When the PS encounters a non‐routine situation related to principal meetings, PS takes a teaching approach in ways appropriate to the situation and logically connected to principals’ growth as instructional leaders Teaching practices: ‐Engaging in “joint work” with principals, by making moves that help principals deepen the extent to which they value their growth as instructional leaders as see the PS as mutually accountable for their growth ‐Modeling instructional leadership actions and thinking ‐Developing and using tools—various


materials that engage principals in thinking and acting in ways consistent with instructional leadership ‐Bridging principals to resources to strengthen their instructional leadership including working with outside facilitators to ensure that they take a teaching approach in the meetings ‐Buffering principals from conditions that interfere with their instructional leadership including telling other central office staff that they may not attend the principals’ meetings; limit information items to the last few minutes of the meeting. ‐Ensuring all principals, participate in leading and supporting each other’s growth as instructional leaders


‐ PS talks about their leadership of principal meetings in terms not consistent with taking a teaching approach (e.g., says the purpose of the meetings is to bring all principals together to review district priorities such as the teacher evaluation system or a new curriculum)

‐ PS talks about their leadershipof principal meetings in ways consistent with taking a teaching approach

‐ PS talks about their leadership of principal meetings in ways consistent with taking a teaching approach, but does not clearly articulate what that entails or why such an approach is important to principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ PS talks about their leadership of principal meetings in ways consistent with taking a teaching approach and consistently articulates what engaging in these teaching practices entails and why doing so may help their principals grow as instructional leaders


‐ PS does not set aside adequate time to plan the agenda and activities for principal meetings

‐ PS does not set aside adequatetime to plan the agenda and activities for principal meetings

‐ PS sets aside adequate time to plan the agenda and activities for principal meetings

‐ PS sets aside adequate time to plan the agenda and activities for principal meetings as well as strategically engage others as learning resources


Document Reviews

Agendas of principal meeting (if available) do not include elements consistent with the PS leading the meetings in ways that promise to help principals grow as instructional leaders. For example, the agendas ‐ Do not include learning objectives ‐ List topics to be covered without evidence of strategies PS will use to advance principal learning ‐ Include four or more agenda items

Agendas of principal meeting (if available) do not include elements consistent with the PS leading the meetings in ways that promise to help principals grow as instructional leaders. For example, the agendas ‐ Do not include learning objectives ‐ List topics to be covered without evidence of strategies PS will use to advance principal learning ‐ Include four or more agenda items

Agendas of some principal meetings include elements consistent with the PS leading the meetings with a teaching approach. For example, the agendas include: ‐ Clear learning objectives ‐ Descriptions of activities designed to promote principal learning, though connection to learning objectives isn’t always clear ‐ 3 or fewer segments or an otherwise careful use of time to enable principal learning

‐ Agendas of all principal meetings include elements consistent with the PS leading the meetings with a teaching approach. For example, the agendas include: ‐ Clear learning objectives obviously tied to the PS’s learning plans for the principals for the year and an overall scope and sequence for the principal meetings ‐ Descriptions of activities and how these activities will help principals achieve the learning objectives ‐ 3 or fewer segments to allow for adequate time for deep learning ‐ PS creates facilitator guides for each meeting the demonstrate the PS has planned out the teaching moves they will make at particular points in the meeting to deepen principals’ growth as instructional leaders, including modeling, differentiating activities based on principals’ capacity with a given task, using effective learning tools, and strategically grouping principals ‐ PS creates a year‐long scope‐and‐sequence for the principals meetings that lays out learning objectives and solid rationales for particular choices related to advancing principals’ growth as instructional leaders


Standard 4: Systematically uses multiple forms of evidence of each principal’s capacity for instructional leadership to differentiate or tailor their approach to helping their principals grow as instructional leaders DATA SOURCE Not Adopting




‐ Principals report the PS does not know them as instructional leaders, including their strengths and areas for growth ‐ Principals report the PS does not use evidence to differentiate how they support their growth as instructional leaders ‐ Principals report the PS does not provide evidence‐based feedback to help them grow as instructional leaders

‐ Principals report the PS does not know them as instructional leaders, including their strengths and areas for growth ‐ Principals report the PS does not use evidence to differentiate how they support their growth as instructional leaders ‐ Principals report the PS does not provide evidence‐based feedback to help them grow as instructional leaders

‐ Some principals report the PS knows their strengths and areas for growth as instructional leaders ‐ Some principals report the PS uses evidence to differentiate how they support their growth as instructional leaders ‐ Some principals report the PS provides evidence‐based feedback to help them grow as instructional leaders

‐ All principals report the PS knows their strengths and areas for growth as instructional leaders ‐ All principals report the PS uses evidence to differentiate how they support their growth as instructional leaders ‐ All principals report the PS provides evidence‐based feedback to help them grow as instructional leaders


‐ PS does not reportcollecting or using evidence in their work with principals ‐ Standard 4 Index Scores: ‐Evidence collection index ‐Evidence use index

‐ PS reports collecting and using evidence in their work with principals ‐ Standard 4 Index Scores: ‐Evidence collection index ‐Evidence use index

‐ PS reports occasionally collecting and using evidence in their work with principals ‐ Standard 4 Index Scores: ‐Evidence collection index ‐Evidence use index

‐ PS reports consistently collecting and using evidence in their work with principals ‐ Standard 4 Index Scores: ‐Evidence collection index ‐Evidence use index



‐ PS does not collect or use evidence of principals’ instructional leadership practice; may document teachers’ (not principals’) practice ‐ PS does not use a clear definition of the principal as instructional leadership when collecting and using evidence on principal performance ‐ PS does not have a system for recording or tracking evidence of principals’ instructional leadership over time

‐ PS does not collect or use evidence of principals’ instructional leadership practice; may document teachers’ (not principals’) practice ‐ PS does not use a clear definition of the principal as instructional leadership when collecting and using evidence on principal performance ‐ PS does not have a system for recording or tracking evidence of principals’ instructional leadership over time

‐ PS occasionally collects and uses evidence of principals’ instructional leadership practice ‐ PS occasionally uses a clear definition of the principal as instructional leadership when collecting and using evidence on principal performance; some principals are aware of that definition ‐ PS has, and sometimes uses, a system for recording and tracking evidence of principals’ instructional leadership over time

‐ PS frequently collects and uses evidence of principals’ instructional leadership practice ‐ PS frequently uses a clear definition of the principal as instructional leadership when collecting and using evidence on principal performance; all principals are aware of that definition ‐ PS has, and frequently uses, a system for recording and tracking evidence of principals’ instructional leadership over time


‐ PS says they mainly rely on student test scores, their “gut,” or other impressions of principal capacity for instructional leadership when making decisions about how to support principals

‐ PS says they use some specific pieces of evidence about principals as instructional leaders when making decisions about how to support principals

‐ PS says they use some specific pieces of evidence about principals as instructional leaders when making decisions about how to support principals and can provide a few concrete examples supporting that claim ‐ PS does not clearly explain how they move from evidence to action steps related to principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ PS says they frequently use specific pieces of evidence about principals as instructional leaders when making decisions about how to support principals and can provide many concrete examples supporting that claim ‐ PS clearly explains how they move from evidence to action steps related to principals’ growth as instructional leaders including an explicit rationale for why specific pieces of evidence led them to particular actions



‐ PS does not set aside time to document, clean, and organize collected evidence

‐ PS does not set aside time to document, clean, and organize collected evidence

‐ PS occasionally sets aside time to document, clean, and organize collected evidence

‐ PS frequently sets aside time to document, clean, and organize collected evidence

Document Reviews ‐ PS does not produce documents that indicate they record and track principals’ growth as instructional leaders using multiple data sources

‐ PS does not produce documents that indicate they record and track principals’ growth as instructional leaders using multiple data sources

‐ PS produces documents that indicate they record and track some principals’ growth as instructional leaders using one or two sources of evidence of principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ PS produces regular, detailed documents of how they systematically track multiple forms of evidence of all their principals’ capacity for instructional leadership over the course of the year


Standard 5: Engages principals in the formal district principal evaluation process in ways that help principals grow as instructional leaders

DATA SOURCE Not Adopting

Adopting a Label Engaging at a Surface Level

Engaging with Understanding


‐ Principals report their PS does not use the evaluation process in ways that help them grow as instructional leaders

‐ Principals report their PS does not use the evaluation process in ways that help them grow as instructional leaders

‐ Some principals report their PS uses the evaluation process in ways that help them grow as instructional leaders

‐ All principals report that their PS uses the evaluation process in ways that help them grow as instructional leaders


‐ PS does not report that they engage principals with formal district evaluation processes in ways that support principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ PS reports engaging principals with formal district evaluation processes in ways that support principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ PS reports occasionally engaging principals with formal district evaluation processes in ways that support principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ PS reports frequently engaging principals with formal district evaluation processes in ways that support principals’ growth as instructional leaders


‐ Evaluation, rather than learning processes, drive PS‐principal interactions

‐ Evaluation, rather than learning processes, drive PS‐principal interactions

‐ Evaluation and learning processes drive PS‐principal interactions

‐ Learning processes drive PS‐principal interactions


‐ Principals report their PS’s predominant role is to evaluate them

‐ Principals report their r PS’s predominant role is to evaluate them

‐ Some principals report their PS uses the evaluation process in ways that help them grow as instructional leaders

‐ All principals report that their PS uses the evaluation process in ways that help them grow as instructional leaders


‐ Scheduled meetings with principals primarily follow formal evaluation deadlines

‐ Scheduled meetings with principals primarily follow formal evaluation deadlines

‐ Scheduled meetings with principals follow both formal evaluation deadlines and the PS’s learning goals for principals

‐ Scheduled meetings with principals primarily follow the PS’s learning goals for principals, with evaluation ratings completed as a by‐product of the learning processes


‐ PS spends almost all oftheir time with the principals evaluated as “low” on the principal evaluation

‐ PS spends almost all of their time with the principals evaluated as “low” on the principal evaluation

‐ PS spends between 25‐50% of their time with the principals evaluated as “low” on the principal evaluation

‐ PS spends their time with all principals, including the principals evaluated as “low,” as well as “high,” on the principal evaluation

Document Reviews ‐ PS uses formal evaluation tools as main tools in their work with principals

‐ PS uses formal evaluation tools as main tools in their work with principals

‐ PS uses a variety of tools in their work with principals including

‐ PS uses tools in their work with principals that promise to advance principals’ growth as instructional leaders


Standard 6: Selectively and strategically participates in other central office work processes to maximize the extent to which they and principals focus on principals’ growth as instructional leaders

DATA SOURCE Not Adopting

Adopting a Label Engaging at a Surface Level

Engaging with Understanding


Not applicable

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable


‐ Standard 6 Index Scores: ‐ Instructional leadership‐focus index ‐ Brokering index





‐ PS frequently participates in various district and/or central office work processes, very few to none of which relate to helping principals grow as instructional leaders

‐ PS frequently participates in various district and/or central office work processes, very few to none of which relate to helping principals grow as instructional leaders

‐ PS participates in some district and/or central office work processes that do not obviously relate to principals’ growth as instructional leaders PS struggles to decide which activities relate to principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ PS frequently declines requests or directives to participate in district and/or central office work processes that do not obviously relate to principals’ growth as instructional leaders ‐ PS responds to requests or directives by explaining why their participation or non‐participation in particular district and/or central office work processes relates their role in supporting principals’ growth as instructional leaders


‐ PS talks about the importance of their participation in other central office work processes for reasons other than advancing principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ PS talks about the importance of limiting their participation in other central office work processes that do not clearly support principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ PS talks about the importance of limiting their participation in central office work processes that do not clearly support principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ PS talks about the importance of significantly limiting their participation in any central office work processes that do not clearly support their focus on helping principals grow as instructional leaders


‐ Other central office staff report that the PS is always available for activities not clearly in support of principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ Other central office staff report that the PS is always available for activities not clearly in support of principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ Other central office staff report that the PS occasionally declines requests to participate in other central office activities but they are not always clear why ‐ PS talks about struggling to decide which activities relate principals’ growth as instructional leaders, and that they sometimes choose activities that do not clearly relate

‐Other central office staff report that the PS always declines requests to participate in other central office activities not clearly in support of principals’ growth as instructional leaders ‐ PS talks clearly about which activities do and do not relate to their focus on principals’ growth as instructional leaders, and provides a solid rationale for their characterizations


‐ PS spends more than 50% of their time involved with central office activities not clearly in support of principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ PS spends more than 50% of their time involved with central office activities not clearly in support of principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ PS spends between 25‐50% of their time involved with central office activities not clearly in support of principals’ growth as instructional leaders

‐ PS spends little to no time involved with central office activities not clearly in support of principals’ growth as instructional leaders

Document Reviews ‐ PS frequently authors e‐mails and other communications related to central office activities other than helping principals grow as instructional leaders

‐ PS frequently authors e‐mails and other communications related to central office activities other than helping principals grow as instructional leaders

‐ PS sometimes authors e‐mails and other communications related to central office activities other than helping principals grow as instructional leaders

‐ PS rarely, if ever, authors e‐mails and other communications related to central office activities other than helping principals grow as instructional leaders ‐ When/if they do, PS clearly articulates their rationale for participating/not participating in particular district and/or central office work processes related to their role in supporting principals’ growth as instructional leaders


References Barnes, C. A., Camburn, E., Sanders, B. R., & Sebastian, J. (2010). Developing instructional leaders:

Using mixed methods to explore the black box of planned change in principals’ professional practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 241-279.

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 349-378.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

City, E., Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., & Teitle, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Casserly, M., Lewis, S., Simon, C., Uzzell, R., & Palacios, M. (2013). Principal Evaluations and the Principal Supervisor: Survey Results from the Great City Schools. Washington, D. C.: Council of Great City Schools.

Collins, A. M., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (2003). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible, The principles of learning: Study tools for educators. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr. M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Fink, E., & Resnick, L. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8), 598-610.

Gallucci C., & Swanson J. (2008). Aiming high: Leadership for district-wide instructional improvement: A partnership between the Center for Educational Leadership and Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District, Interim research report and case summary. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Grissom, J., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433-444.

Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108, 1–29.

Heck, R. (1992). Principals' instructional leadership and school performance: Implications for policy development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 21-34.

Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Instructional leadership and school achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26, 94-125.

Honig, M. I., Copland, M., Rainey, L., Lorton, J. & Newton, M. (2010). Central office transformation for district-wide teaching and learning improvement. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.


Honig, M.I. (2012). District central office leadership as teaching: How central office administrators support principals’ development as instructional leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 733-744.

Honig, M.I. & Rainey, L.R. (2014). Central office leadership in principal professional learning communities: The practice beneath the policy. Teachers College Record, 116(4). Retrieved from: http://www.tcrecord.org/library/abstract.asp?contentid=17404.

Honig, M.I., Rainey, L.R., & Habenicht, S. (Forthcoming). Research on Principal Supervisors: What do we know and what do we still need to know.

Hubbard, L., Mehan, H., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Reform as learning: When school reform collides with school culture and community politics. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lave, J. (1998). Cognition in practice: Mind, culture, and mathematics in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Marsh, J., Kerr, K., Schuyler-Ikemoto, G., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., & Zimmer, R. (2005). The Role of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts partnered with the Institute for Learning. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education.

Peterson, K. (2002). The professional development of principals: Innovations and opportunities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 213-232.

Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.

Rogoff, B., Baker-Sennett, J., Lacas, P., & Goldsmith, D. (1995). Development through participation in sociocultural activity. In J. Goodnow, P. Miller & F. Kessel (Eds.), Cultural practices as contexts for development (pp. 45-65). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., & Johnson, T. S. (2003). The twisting path of concept development in learning to teach. Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1399–1436.

Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2011). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31-56.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social

context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

principal s uperviso r performance sttandards ps performance standards (version 1.0... · ipal...

Documents