Overworked, undertrained principals

Survey call for new evaluations
By John Fensterwald - Educated Guess

Conduct more intensive teacher evaluations. Be the CEO of site-based budgeting. Guide the transition to Common Core standards.

School reforms on the books or in the making would pile on significant responsibilities for school principals. But a new study by the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd warns that California’s principals are already short-staffed, untrained for new responsibilities, and stretched thin in many directions. They’re working 60 hours per week on average, with fewer office and support staff around to lighten the load, according to the Center’s survey of 600 principals.

“Budget cuts and increasing accountability pressures are clearly making the job (of principal) harder,” said Holly Jacobson, director of the Center at WestEd. “Just as teachers most need their support, principals have more to do, and less time, resources, and support to do it.”

In their 2011 annual Status of the Teaching Profession report, the Center focused on principals in a state that’s lean with administrators (California ranks 48th in the nation in the ratio of principals/assistant principals to students, according to EdSource).  Not only are principals feeling pressure from federal accountability sanctions – two-thirds of Title I (low-income) schools are in Program Improvement under No Child Left Behind – but they tend to be led by principals relatively new to the job. The Center’s survey found that half of principals overall have been principal for no more than  five years, and 53 percent have been in their current job less than three years.

Fewer than half of principals surveyed had experience in key site management responsibilities before being promoted.Click to enlarge. (CFTL survey of 600 principals)

Fewer than half of principals surveyed had experience in key site management responsibilities before being promoted. Click to enlarge. (CFTL survey of 600 principals)

Most report that they had prior experience conducting classroom observations (74 percent) and creating a school staff development plan (69 percent), but less that three-fifths had done a teacher evaluation, and less than half had managed school facilities (48 percent), created a master schedule (45 percent), or done a school budget (34 percent).

It would be one thing if there was sufficient on-the-job training. But California has no state mentoring and fellowship programs for new principals. According to the Center’s report, the state has cut $100 million for teacher and principal training programs in the past few years, but that figure probably vastly understates cuts in training money. Districts can now spend professional development dollars however they want, and most  have pared back training to prevent more staff layoffs and even larger class sizes.

In the key area of staff development, only about a third of principals reported that they received training to any great extent in conducting evaluations or classroom observations.

It may be wishful thinking, given all of their duties, but the report urges reprioritizing principals’ responsibilities. One thing that could help, said Jacobson and the report’s chief researcher Patrick Shields of SRI International, would be to more extensively call on veteran teachers to share their content expertise with other teachers, so that the role of instruction leader is not totally on the principal’s shoulders.

Three-quarters of principals agreed that current evaluations are useful in improving instruction, but only a third agreed that the system is useful in removing ineffective teachers. Click to enlarge. (CFTL survey of 600 principals)

Three-quarters of principals agreed that current evaluations are useful in improving instruction, but only a third agreed that the system is useful in removing ineffective teachers. Click to enlarge. (CFTL survey of 600 principals)

Creating a more effective teacher evaluation system, with the goal of improving teachers’ instruction, is one of the report’s recommendations – and is expected to be a legislative priority in 2012 (via AB 5, the primary bill on the issue). Principals agreed that the current regulation-laden system, based on announced, formal classroom observations, is not efficient in weeding out low-performers. Only a third agreed that the current system results in removing ineffective teachers (only 5 percent strongly agreed), while only 16 percent strongly agreed (53 percent generally agreed) that current evaluations help teachers improve.

A reinvented comprehensive evaluation system, with multiple measures as the report recommends, will hardly lighten any principal’s load, even with some help from department heads, mentor teachers, and assistant principals. (One possibility is to expand the peer review programs to let consulting teachers evaluate probationary teachers, as in Poway Unified, and other teachers.) The Center also suggests that shifting from a compliance-driven evaluation system should make it easier to dismiss a small percentage of bad performers; they currently can consume most of a principal’s attention.

Two other recommendations in the report:

  • Support principals and teachers in integrating Common Core standards in English language arts and math, before assessments are implemented in 2014-15. Teachers need time to change approaches to instruction and develop lesson plans.
  • Increase the information on teachers and principals in a statewide data system. This has been a controversy since Gov. Jerry Brown returned federal money to continue building a statewide database on teachers called CALTIDES. The report suggests that much information on teachers, including from which college they received their teaching certification, is already in databases at the Department of Education and the Commission on Teaching Credentialing. State lawmakers should change  statutes so that this information is shared with CALPADS, the statewide student data base, the report said. Local and state officials need it to predict teacher and principal turnover and areas of staff shortages and to measure the effectiveness of institutions that award teaching credentials.

5 Comments

  1. Principals are the forgotten part of the whole “teacher effectiveness” movement. A school is an ecosystem and no matter how hard one tries, it is impossible to isolate the impact of a single teacher on the performance of a classroom of students. There are so many other factors – the principal being one of them – which cannot all be controlled for in order to determine the “value-add” of that single teacher. I’ve seen far too many examples of terrible schools improved dramatically by a great principal only to return to terrible after the principal leaves, even though the staff is largely consistent.
    I’d train my sites on this before teachers as it seems imminently more manageable with far fewer administrators to support than teachers with the power to have such an amazing impact. Support = training, mentoring, freedom from burdensome regulations, et. al.

    While I’m commenting here, I still don’t understand why “Teachers need time to change approaches to instruction and develop lesson plans” in reaction to CommonCore. Standards are “content” and not “pedagogy”. Great instructional strategies are content agnostic. Teachers should not have to alter their pedagogy, just apply it to different content. Or – are we finally admitting that the whole standards movement and the high stakes testing associated with it has dumbed down our approach to teaching, focusing only on rote memorization and direct instruction. Great teachers didn’t alter their instruction in reaction to NCLB and won’t need to alter it for CommonCore. Mediocre teachers were forced to alter their instruction by administrators and district bureaucrats who mistook “more rigor” for “test prep” as opposed to “critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving”.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  2. John,

    You title this post “Overworked, undertrained principals.”

    Most principals make between $85,000 and $115,000 a year.  Your site posts the average salary is $105,906 a year.  How can you defend the conclusion a principal is “OVER”worked when they receive six-digit compensation?

    Is a principal’s job challenging?  Yes.  Are many principals tired at the end of a work day or work week?  Probably.  Are principals working longer or harder than most other $100,000 salaried employees in the private or public sector?  Unlikely – especially when vacation time, sick time and pension future is considered.

    I don’t see these job assignments as a great sacrifice for most principals.  Perhaps you do.  I welcome hearing from you if you believe principals could earn comparable total compensation and lifetime benefits in other fields for less work and less stress.

    Please be cautious about trumpeting the “overworked” title.  Hourly workers juggling three jobs  to make ends meet might be overworked.  A six-digit public executive with rights of retreat to the classroom and a guaranteed retirement check for life?  That sounds like a privileged, graced opportunity to most Californians.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  3. The Common Core standards will involve shifts in pedagogical approaches for a couple of reasons.  First, they provide an impetus to do more interdisciplinary approaches – which I think would be a good move anyways, and I hope that if it’s done, people will be looking beyond the standards to a variety of other benefits that might follow.  Secondly, I’m afraid that many teachers have had their teaching skills blunted by NCLB.  Thanks to mistakend but predictable reactions to NCLB, teachers have been handed scripts, Curriculum-in-a-Box™, and forced to sit through meetings poring over standardized test data as if they held The Answer.  There will be an adjustment if Common Core standards can, as promised, lead to more performance-based assessments that require more innovative teaching and assessment strategies.  And though Bill Gates might cringe when I say it, I’ll go out on a limb and say teachers who have been around longer than NCLB might have an edge.  Those who entered into the system and have only worked in these past few years might – as a whole – have had less opportunity to make design their own approaches, as I hope they will in coming years.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

Trackbacks

  1. Report: Overworked, undertrained principals – by John Fensterwald – Educated Guess : SCOE News Reader
  2. Report: Overworked, undertrained principals | Thoughts on Public Education « Gonzalez Education Weblog

"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.

2010 elections(16)
2012 election(3)
A to G Curriculum(23)
Achievement Gap(30)
Adequacy suit(19)
Advocacy organizations(20)
Assessments(31)
Blog info(4)
CALPADS(30)
Career academies(17)
Character education(2)
Charters(76)
Common Core standards(61)
Community Colleges(52)
Data(24)
Did You Know(16)
Disabilities education(3)
Dropout prevention(8)
Education Excellence Committee(14)
English learners(6)
© Thoughts on Public Education 2012 | Home | Terms of Use | Site Map | Contact Us