The Ontario Leadership Framework and the Principal ... Report - OLF and the...The Ontario Leadership Framework and the Principal Performance Appraisal: How Connected are They?

Research Paper

Presented to Ontario Principals’ Council

July, 2012

The Ontario Leadership Framework and the Principal

Performance Appraisal: How Connected are They?

Submitted by Peter Edwards, EdD Candidate, OISE

Acknowledgement

The researcher would like to extend his appreciation to the Ontario Principals’ Council for the

support of this project. A special thank you is also extended to Dr. Joanne Robinson for her

guidance and supervision and to Sarah Morrison for her expertise and assistance in developing

the online survey.

The researcher would also like to thank all the principals and vice-principals who took the time

to complete the online survey.

(i)

Abstract

The primary research question addressed in this paper is: How connected are the Ontario

Leadership Framework (OLF) and the Principal Performance Appraisal (PPA)? The Ontario

Leadership Strategy introduced in 2008/2009 was designed to attract and support school and

system leaders. The OLF and the PPA were two key components of that initiative.

Greater than 70% of Participants, responding in an online survey, reported that each of the five

domains of the OLF was considered during the appraisal process. Two of the domains, Leading

the Instructional Program and Securing Accountability, were perceived to receive more

emphasis. Participants reported that the OLF was not as an integral part of the performance

plan or in identifying future professional growth opportunities.

In the open response survey item, which 32% of respondents completed, other concerns with

the PPA process were raised. Those concerns included the missed timelines of the process, the

subjectivity of the appraiser, and the workload in completing the process.

(ii)

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement ..................................................................................................... (i)

Abstract ...................................................................................................................... (ii)

Rationale .................................................................................................................... 1

Research Question ..................................................................................................... 4

Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 5

Context ....................................................................................................................... 9

Methodology .............................................................................................................. 6

Findings and Discussion ............................................................................................. 11

Recommendations and Conclusions .......................................................................... 17

Reference List ............................................................................................................. 19

Appendix A: Survey Protocol ..................................................................................... 22

Appendix B: Participants’ Open Responses ............................................................... 25

Leaders are designers, stewards and teachers. They are responsible for building organizations where people continually expand their capabilities to understand complexity, clarify vision and improve shared mental models – that is, they are responsible for learning. (Peter Senge, 1990)

Rationale

The importance of school leadership and its effect on student achievement has been critically

and somewhat extensively examined in the last two decades. It is now commonly reported that

the principal is second only to the classroom teacher in improving student achievement

(Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004; Robinson, Hohepa & Llyod, 2009; Waters,

Marzano & McNulty 2003; Blase & Blase, 1999; Kaplan, Owings & Nunnery, 2005; Leithwood &

Jantzi, 2008). Expectations for school leaders continue to expand and evolve; the complexity of

the task in leading a school, particularly in this era of accountability, has increased dramatically

(Horng, Klasik & Loeb, 2010; Queen & Shumacher, 2006). How effective a leader is depends on

so many variables; it can be a challenge for the principal to ascertain which strategy or skill is

required at that moment. As Leithwood (2011) identifies, much of the work the school leader

does is contextual. What was the correct strategy or action in one situation can be completely

wrong in the next.

Principals cannot simply look to the past for direction or examples of best practice. The role of

the principal has changed too significantly in the past fifty years. This evolution has moved the

principal from the heroic figure leading from the front through charisma and an engaging

personality to a facilitator who shares the leadership of the school with a number of different

stakeholders. Leadership has moved from a traditional hierarchal framework through a number

2

of different models and qualifiers including transformational leadership, instructional

leadership, facilitative leadership and distributed leadership (Catano & Stronge, 2006). The

skills, ability and knowledge that were once so effective may no longer be appropriate. The

public accountability of the education system and specifically principals has led to an increased

emphasis on principal evaluation (Kaplan, Owings & Nunnery, 2005: Catano & Stronge, 2006).

The Ontario government has responded to this increased expectation of principals through a

number of leadership initiatives.

In 2008-09 the Ministry of Education in Ontario introduced the Ontario Leadership Strategy

(OLS) in an effort to attract and support school and system leaders. Two key components of the

OLS were the Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF) and the Principal Performance Appraisal

(PPA). The OLF outlined five key leadership domains as well as the knowledge, skills and

attitudes within those domains that school leaders need in the current educational setting. The

PPA was designed to be an ongoing professional conversation between the principal and their

supervisor. The intended foci of that conversation were the components of the OLF, targets in

relations to the OLF and the performance of the principal in meeting those targets. The PPA

documentations includes an annual growth plan, a performance plan (completed during the

appraisal year), and a final summative report. As indicated in the PPA technical requirements

manual 2010, this process was intended to “help principals/vice-principals – both new and

experienced – achieve their full potential as school leaders” (p.9).

Surprisingly, given the importance of school leaders and the evaluation of their performance,

limited research has been conducted in this area. Catano and Stronge (2010) note that “there is

3

a need to examine performance evaluation in determining the effectiveness of principals”

(p.222). Lashway (2003) also identifies that “the empirical research base is very thin” for

principal assessment (p.2). Finally Goldring et al. identify an increased interest in school

leadership training and preparation, but note that leadership assessment and evaluation has

not received the same level of attention or research (2009).

As a practicing principal, the evaluation process and the standards by which my performance

will be evaluated are critically important to me. In the past, both the evaluation process and the

performance standards were opaque. In the twelve years that I have been a vice-principal or

principal I have received two evaluations. Although the process in one of those valuations was

extremely beneficial for my future professional growth, neither evaluation articulated against

what standards I would be assessed, or even if there were standards. The skills, knowledge and

abilities I was expected to demonstrate were vague and extremely subjective. It was not until

the final stages of the evaluation, during the oral feedback and in the summative report, that

the expectations were made somewhat more explicit.

In the past seven years the appraisal of my performance has been nearly nonexistent. A

consistent pattern has developed during that time. Early in the school year the superintendent

would visit the school to discuss the needs of the school, the school improvement plan, specific

targets or goals for that school year and a quick walk-through of the school. A significant

portion of the meeting would be spent on reviewing the school’s results on the EQAO

assessment from the previous year and how I had analyzed the data from that assessment.

Sometime in January the superintendent would visit the school for a second time. The focus of

4

the discussion would be the implementation of the improvement plan, what supports were

needed, and were the targets and goals identified in September, specifically the EQAO targets,

likely to be achieved. Since 2005 I have not received any specific feedback on my effectiveness

as a principal or strategies that I should consider to improve my practice. At no time has the

Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF) been referred to in the discussion of my performance or

my professional growth.

The Leadership Framework is an excellent resource for both principals and supervisors

evaluating the performance of principals. It clearly articulates the expected competencies

principals should have and be developing in order to effectively lead the school. The OLF should

be woven into the principal performance appraisal process as indicated in the PPA Technical

Requirements Manual, 2010 so that the process is authentic, transparent and leads to the

professional growth of principals.

Research Question

The phenomenon that this research paper will explore is the perception that principals have

about the connectedness of the Ontario Leadership Framework and the Principal Performance

Appraisal. The specific research question is:

How connected are the OLF and the PPA?

Several sub-questions emerge from the specific research question including:

To what degree were all components of the OLF included in the PPA?

Was the ‘conversation’ between appraiser and appraisee focused on the OLF?

To what extent were the OLF competencies included in the feedback to the appraisee?

5

How knowledgeable are principals of the OLF and the PPA process?

Conceptual Framework

Principal appraisals or evaluation has been characterized as late, infrequent and an

administrative burden (Reeves, 2004). The evaluation often lacks effective or timely feedback

that the principal can use to improve their performance (Ediger, 1998). Lashway (2003) reports

that there are typically three forms of evaluation in use: checklists of behaviours or traits; free

form narratives; and evaluation by objectives measured against predetermined goals. As

Condon & Clifford (2010) note, because of the changes in the role over the past decade the

“older measures do not capture essential features of the position” (p.10). In order for the

appraisal to be effective the standards by which the principal will be evaluated must be known

by both the principal and the evaluator. Research has identified key practices, skills,

competencies, and knowledge that principals require to be successful (Robinson et al., 2009;

Hattie, 2008). In a number of settings key leadership standards have been developed and

explicitly stated. Competency frameworks are being used in Queensland and Western Australia

in evaluating principal effectiveness. The national Professional Qualification for Headships is in

use in England and Wales. Similar to the competency framework found in Australia, key skills

and knowledge are identified, which are further divided into specific indicators. A final example

of explicit leadership competencies is the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium

(ISLLC) standards framework from the United States. Similar to the other frameworks, key skills,

knowledge and dispositions are identified for both principals and evaluators to refer to during

an appraisal (Louden & Wildy, 1999). The challenge that remains is in applying these research-

6

based standards to the performance of the principal. There is little research identifying how

leadership standards are being used by districts in general or specifically how the standards

support principal evaluation (Kimball et al., 2009).

As early as 2001 it was reported that the ISLLC standards were being used to evaluate principals

(Van Meter & McMinn, 2001). The authors identified as a concern how the standards were

being applied in that process. A linear model of evaluation was found to be a somewhat

consistent practice in many jurisdictions. This practice followed the path of identifying

competencies, describing the expected performance, and then making judgement based on the

closeness of fit between the principal’s behaviour and the desired competency (Derrington &

Sanders, 2011). This model was found to be “insufficient to create a comprehensive and

descriptive framework for the supervision and evaluation of principals” (p.33). As Derrington

and Sanders further report, “this traditional model relies on the observation and evaluation of

one supervisor as the judge of a principal’s administrative effectiveness” (p.33). Despite many

jurisdictions developing a framework of leadership competencies, the application of that

framework to the appraisal of principals remains a challenge.

A common characteristic of all the frameworks identified was that multiple skills, knowledge,

behaviours or dispositions are identified. But as Babo & Ramaswami (2011) note, there appears

to be a ranking of importance to the specific items contained in the framework. As an example,

the ISLLC competency framework contains six standards:

1) A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by

facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision.

7


advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive

to student learning and staff professional growth. Managing school in an efficient and

effective manner.


ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient,

and effective learning environment.


collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community

interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.


acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.


understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal,

and cultural context.

All six standards are clearly important, but possibly not equally important. Babo and

Ramaswami (2011) found that “63% of the State of Virginia’s superintendents base principal

evaluation on student performance and achievement” (p.32). The authors conclude that

“superintendents place a premium on the principal’s ability to influence and improve

instructional practice and their influence on student achievement” (p.33). Their research found

that on the opposite end of the spectrum, “skills related to connecting with the community,

both on the micro and macro level, [were] of lesser importance when evaluating principals”

(p.29). A concern that emerges from these findings is the possibility that the principal and

evaluator may not agree on the specific importance of one of the standards. This certainly

could happen given the contextual nature of leadership (Leithwood, 2011; Goldring et al.,

2009).

8

The Ontario Leadership Framework is similar to the leadership competency frameworks found

in other jurisdictions. The purpose of the framework is to:

To inspire a shared vision of leadership in schools and boards.

To promote a common language that fosters an understanding of leadership and of what it

means to be a leader.

To identify the competencies and practices that describe effective leadership.

To guide the design and implementation of training and development for leaders.

The OLF identifies five domains which contain specific skills, knowledge and attitudes that an

effective principal should demonstrate. The five domains are:

1) Setting Directions -The principal builds a shared vision, fosters the acceptance of group

goals, and sets high performance expectations.

2) Building Relationships and Developing People - The principal strives to establish genuine,

trusting relationships with students, staff, families, and communities, guided by a sense of

mutual respect. The principal affirms and empowers others to work in the best interest of all

students.

3) Developing the Organization -The principal builds collaborative cultures, structures the

organization for success, and connects the school to its wider environment

4) Leading the Instructional Program - The principal sets high expectations for learning

outcomes and monitors and evaluates the effectiveness of instruction. The principal

manages the school organization effectively so that everyone can focus on teaching and

learning.

5) Securing Accountability -The principal is accountable to students, parents, the community,

supervisors, and the board for ensuring that students benefit from a high-quality education

and for promoting collective responsibility for student outcomes within the whole school

community. The principal is specifically accountable for the goals set out in the school

improvement plan.

In Ontario, the focus on school leadership is clearly evident. In developing and releasing the

Leadership Strategy, a commitment has been made to the development and support of school

leaders. Two of the key components of the strategy were the Ontario Leadership Framework

9

(OLF) and the Principal Performance Appraisal (PPA). With the release of the PPA in 2009/2010,

the method and process to evaluate principals became standardized across the province. The

OLF was a key support in the process of evaluation as the five domains identified in the OLF

were to be used in the annual growth plan and the performance plan, which the appraisal was

based upon. A key concept of the appraisal process was leadership development, which was

addressed by “providing opportunities for principals/vice-principals to have meaningful

dialogue with their supervisors about performance, articulate the supports they require to

achieve goals and provide opportunities for professional growth” (p.6). The success of the OLF

and the PPA in developing school leaders has yet to be examined.

Context

Prior to 2009/2010, the process for evaluating principals in Ontario was left to the discretion of

each individual school board. Each board could also identify and emphasize skills and

knowledge that they believed were critical in the success of the principal. In introducing the

PPA and the OLF, the ministry has clearly stated which competencies are the most important

and how school boards should be evaluating principals.

This study was intended to give a snapshot of the perception of principals of whether the

Ontario Leadership Framework has been woven into the appraisal process. The participants

were randomly self-selected from across Ontario. Contained in the data set are both

elementary and secondary principals, male and female, as well as various years of experience. A

differentiation between vice-principals and principals was not made – both positions are

10

evaluated using the same process. All participants are current members of the Ontario Principal

Council.

Methodology

This research project utilized an online survey of current principals and vice-principals who

were members of the Ontario Principals’ Council (OPC). An online survey was selected because

it allowed for the greatest accessibility for respondents and it provided an easily manipulated

data set. A link to the survey was posted on the bi-weekly bulletin from OPC along with an

explanation and purpose of the research project. The survey was left open for six weeks to

allow for a maximum number of respondents. All survey items were worded as positive

statements. A total of fifteen question were included in the survey. The first three were

demographic questions; the next eleven were asking for principals’ perception of the OLF and

the connectedness to the PPA; and the final question was an open response. The specific target

group was principals who had been through the PPA introduced in 2010. Respondents who

were evaluated prior to 2010 were excluded from the sample group. The survey used a five

point Likert Scale,

1……………………………2……………….….…3…………….….……...4……..…………….5

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree

to gauge the perception of the sample group. An open response item was included in the survey for

participants to expand on a theme of their choosing. Range, Mean and Standard Deviation were

calculated for each survey item. Survey items were than examined and data was analyzed considering a

number of variables including gender, years of experience, teaching panel, and year of appraisal.

11

Findings and Discussion

The findings of this research project are limited by a number of factors including the relatively

small sample size, all participants are from the Ontario Principals’ Council, and a number of

participants did not complete all items from the survey. Despite these limitations, the results

are important and worthy of discussion.

Demographic Data

Table 1 – Years of Experience

Years of Experience Percentage of Participants

3 years or less 24%

4 to 6 years 32%

7 years or more 44%

Table 2 – Panel Representation

Panel Percentage of Participants

Elementary 80%

Secondary 20%

Table 3- Gender of Participants

Gender Percentage of Participants

Female 82%

Male 18%

Table 4 – Year of Appraisal

Year of Appraisal Percentage of Participants

2010 6%

2011 50%

2012 44%

12

Table 5 – Summary of Results

Survey Item Range of Responses

Mean Result

Standard Deviation

% of “Agree or Strongly Agree”

Responses

I consider myself knowledgeable about the OLF and use it to guide my own professional growth

2 – 5 3.68 0.65 64.7%

I consider myself knowledgeable about the PPA and the requirements associated with it

2 – 5 3.94 0.48 85.3%

My performance plan considered all five domains of the OLF

1 – 5 3.26 1.35 47.1%

The discussion with my appraiser in developing my performance plan considered all five domains of the OLF

1 – 5 3.33 1.67 58.8%

My appraisal considered my ability to build a shared vision, foster the acceptance of group goals and set and communicate high performance expectation (Setting Directions)

1 – 5

3.68

1.18

73.5%

My appraisal considered my ability to foster genuine trusting relationships with students, staff, families and communities, guided by a sense of mutual respect. (Building Relationships and Developing People)

1 – 5

3.91

1.30

76.5%

My appraisal considered my ability to build collaborative cultures, structure the organization for success, and connect the school to its wider environment. (Developing the Organization)

1 – 5

3.76

1.22

76.4%

My appraisal considered my ability to set high expectations for learning outcomes and monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of instruction. My appraisal considered my ability to manage the school effectively so that everyone can focus on teaching and learning. (Leading the Instruction Program)

2 – 5

4.00

1.30

76.4%

My appraisal considered my ability to create conditions for student success and my accountability to students, parents, the community, supervisors and to the board for ensuring that students benefit from a high quality education. My appraisal considered my ability to be accountable for the goals set out in the school improvement plan. (Securing Accountability)

2 – 5

3.85

0.80

76.5%

Competencies and practices from the OLF were used as suggestions in guiding future direction in my practice as outlined in my summative report.

1 – 5

3.50

1.11

58.8%

My overall impression was that the all components of the OLF were woven into my appraisal process.

1 – 5 3.50 0.98 55.9%

13

The participants represented a wide range of experience as school leaders and included both

male and female administrators from both elementary and secondary panels. Greater than 90%

of the participants were evaluated in the last two years, making their data extremely current.

The new PPA was introduced in 2009/2010, so participants who were evaluated in 2010 were

very early in the implementation stages of the new process.

A general conclusion that can be drawn from the data is that the current PPA has the

Leadership Framework woven throughout the process. For all survey items, except item three

which related to the performance plan, greater than 58% of responses agreed with the survey

item statement. The five specific statements relating to the domains of the OLF all scored

greater than 70% of participants in agreement that the specific domain had been considered in

their appraisal. It is of interest though that when participants were asked for an overall

impression of the connectedness of the OLF and the PPA, the result declines to only 55.9%

being in agreement.

As noted earlier, the PPA process emphasizes the professional dialogue between the supervisor

and the appraisee. The PPA technical requirements manual identifies the need for various

meetings throughout the process, including an initial meeting where when targets and goals for

the performance plan are identified. Only 55.8% of participants reported that the discussion

between them and the evaluator included all domains of the OLF. Despite the PPA

requirements, only 47.1% of participants responded in agreement that all five domains of the

OLF were considered in the development of their performance plan.

14

Differences were noted in specific sub-groups of the survey. Male participants’ mean response

to all survey items was 3.40 while female respondents’ mean response was 3.73. Respondents

with three or less years of experiences were by far the most positive with a response mean of

4.10. Participants with between four and six years dropped to a response mean of 3.30 while

those with seven years or more of experience increased back to 3.55. Examining the data by the

year of the appraisal did produce some initial differences. Participants who were appraised in

2010 had a response mean of 3.23, but participants who were appraised in 2011 or 2012 had

near identical response means, 3.68 and 3.70, No difference was noted when sorting

participants by panel – the mean response for elementary was 3.68 while secondary mean

response was 3.60.

Survey item four, “The discussion with my appraiser in developing my performance plan

considered all five domains of the OLF”, had the greatest standard deviation, 1.67. 12% of

participants strongly disagreed with the statement and a further 18% of participants disagreed.

Together this resulted in 30% of participants reporting that they disagreed with the statement.

This was the most negatively reported item and was closely aligned with the comments

participants provided in the open response survey item.

Survey item eight, “My appraisal considered my ability to set high expectations for learning

outcomes and monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of instruction. My appraisal considered

my ability to manage the school effectively so that everyone can focus on teaching and learning.

(Leading the Instruction Program)”, produced the greatest positive responses from

participants. 38% of participants reported that they strongly agreed with the statement. No

15

participants reported ‘strongly disagree’ with survey item eight. This result was duplicated with

survey item nine, “My appraisal considered my ability to create conditions for student success

and my accountability to students, parents, the community, supervisors and to the board for

ensuring that students benefit from a high quality education. My appraisal considered my ability

to be accountable for the goals set out in the school improvement plan (Securing

Accountability)”. These results are not surprising given the findings of current research and the

need for principals to be instructional leaders in the schools as well as the current climate of

public accountability in education.

When considering individual participants’ responses, a substantial range exists. One participant

responded ‘strongly agree’ to every survey item. This participant was an elementary, female

administrator with three years of experience who was evaluated in 2012. In the open response

survey item she reported, “I love this PPA process!” This sentiment contrasts dramatically with

the participant who had the lowest response mean at 1.82. This second participant, a male,

secondary administrator with eight years of experience who was evaluated in 2011, indicated

he ‘strongly disagree’ with six of the survey items. His open response comment was, “I felt like

my PPA was done TO me and that I was, at best, a passive participant helping my SO fulfill their

requirements.”

The open responses produced some of the more interesting findings, although most were

unrelated to the research question posed for this project. 32% of participants completed the

optional open response survey item. Those responses that did include reference to the

connectedness of the OLF and the PPA included:

16

The components of the OLF were woven into the process by ME only. My appraiser affirmed what I’d written. The summative report by the appraiser was a brief paragraph with no recommendations for growth.

Another respondent reported that it was the first time for the appraiser to use the OLF and

they were not totally familiar with it. A final comment relating to the OLF was that the

respondent’s board had developed their own framework, which was based on the OLF.

The other open responses focused on the appraisal process, and highlighted the frustration

many respondents had towards their evaluation. A common concern raised was the timing of

the process. Respondents reported waiting five months after the process to receive their

summative report, and then only after requesting the report more than once. This experience,

waiting for the summative report, was a common thread found in multiple responses. Another

respondent reported that that the timelines set forth by the board were not met. One

participant reported that their appraisal was thrown in at the last minute and that no timelines

were met.

Other concerns raised about the PPA process included the subjectivity of the appraisal and that

the relationship between the appraiser and the appraisee has too great an influence. Another

concern raised was by a vice-principal assigned to multiple schools. They felt their role was

limited to what the principal assigns them and that they didn’t have the opportunity to be a

part of the school success planning.

One respondent shared details of her disastrous experience with the appraisal process. Her

experiences included being informed of her evaluation in September and then having no

contact with her appraiser until February. At that time the appraiser arrived unannounced and

17

intended to spend three days in the school to complete the appraisal. In May the participant

was told her evaluation was not going well and the appraiser wondered if she was considering

retirement. The summative report was delayed until September of the following year so as to

incorporate the school’s results on the EQAO assessment. As of May, a full twenty months after

first being informed they would be evaluated, the participant had still not received a final

summative report.

Recommendations and Conclusion

Ontario’s Principal Performance Appraisal clearly articulates the belief that the Leadership

Framework is a key tool that will “support leadership development, refine leadership skills, and

put advanced leadership concepts and techniques to work on a daily basis” (p.5). Furthermore,

an effective appraisal process, as identified by Reeves (2004), needs to provide effective

feedback that supports the ongoing professional growth of the principal. Effectively weaving

the OLF into the PPA is essential in developing principals to their full potential. Significant steps

have been taken in this direction. Some key recommendations to continue this growth are:

Recommendation 1 – Principals should consider all domains of the OLF in developing their

performance plan. This does not mean that all five domains must be included in the plan as

school leadership is contextual and a focus on one or two domains may be appropriate, but all

domains of the OLF are important and should be explicitly considered.

Recommendation 2 – Both appraisers and appraisees should ensure that the five domains from

the OLF are a focal point in the professional dialogue that should occur throughout the

appraisal process.

18

Recommendation 3 – The OLF should be referenced in the future professional development of

the principal as outlined in the summative report.

Recommendation 4 – OPC should continue to support principals before, during and after the

appraisal process. Based on the participants’ open responses, too often the guidelines and

timelines established in the Ministry documents are not being met.

Recommendation 5 – Further research should be conducted to exam the effectiveness of the

PPA process, how it is improving principal practice, and whether the OLF is woven throughout

the process. This includes the development of the performance plan and the feedback in the

summative report.

In conclusion, the Ontario Leadership Framework has been woven into much of the Principal

Performance Appraisal. When considering each of the five domains of the OLF, in excess of 70%

of participants reported agreement that the domain was considered during the appraisal. The

OLF could and should be more infused into the development of the performance plan and as a

reference for providing feedback to principals. In order to improve principals’ performance,

specific, meaningful and timely feedback needs to be given as part of the appraisal process. The

Ontario Leadership framework can be a primary resource for that feedback.

Being a principal is an amazing profession. It is challenging, dynamic, energizing and draining – but most of all, it is rewarding.

(Todd Whitaker, 2003)

19

Reference List

Babo, G., & Ramaswami, S. (2011). A hierarchy of application of the ISLLC 2008 principal evaluation standards: A national study. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 8(2), 26-37. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/964170633?accountid=14771; http://www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals instructional leadership and teacher development:

Teachers perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-378. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com/docview/62378443?accountid=14771

Catano, N., & Stronge, J. H. (2006). What are principals expected to do? congruence between

principal evaluation and performance standards. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 221-237. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com/docview/62013109?accountid=14771; http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192636506292211

Condon, C., & Clifford, M. (2010). Measuring principal performance: How rigorous are

commonly used principal performance assessment instruments? A quality school leadership issue brief. Learning Point Associates. 1120 East Diehl Road Suite 200, Naperville, IL 60563-1486. Tel: 800-252-0283; Fax: 630-649-6722; Web site: http://www.learningpt.org. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com/docview/742871899?accountid=14771

Derrington, M. L., & Sanders, K. (2011). Conceptualizing a system for principal evaluation. AASA

Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 7(4), 32-38. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com/docview/854551949?accountid=14771; http://www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx

Ediger, M. (1998). Appraising the school principal. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com/docview/62490868?accountid=14771 Fullan, M. (2010). Motion leadership : The skinny on becoming change savvy. Thousand Oaks,

Calif.: Corwin Press. Goldring, E., Cravens, X. C., Murphy, J., Porter, A. C., Elliott, S. N., & Carson, B. (2009). The

evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban districts assess leadership? Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 19-39. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com/docview/61860308?accountid=14771; http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/598841

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning : A synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: New York: Routledge.

http://www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx

http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com/docview/62378443?accountid=14771

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192636506292211


http://www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx


http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/598841

20

Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principals’ time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491-523. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com/docview/754907067?accountid=14771; http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/653625

Kaplan, L. S., Owings, W. A., & Nunnery, J. (2005). Principal quality: A Virginia study connecting

interstate school leaders licensure consortium standards with student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(643), 28-44. doi:10.1177/019263650508964304

Kimball, S. M., Milanowski, A., & McKinney, S. A. (2009). Assessing the promise of standards-

based performance evaluation for principals: Results from a randomized trial. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(3), 233-263. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/61851743?accountid=14771; http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&id=doi:10.1080/15700760802416099

Lashway, L. (2003). Improving principal evaluation. ERIC digest ERIC Clearinghouse on

Educational Management, 5207 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5207. Tel: 541-346-2332; Tel: 800-438-8841 (Toll Free); Fax: 541-346-2334. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com/docview/62169419?accountid=14771

Leithwood, K. (2011). The Ontario Leadership Framework (Draft). Paper prepared for Ministry

of Education, Leadership Development Branch Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of

leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496-528. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com/docview/61964862?accountid=14771; http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321501

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences

student learning. Review of research. The Wallace Foundation, Five Penn Plaza, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10001. Tel: 212-251-9700; Web site: www.wallacefoundation.org. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com/docview/62065617?accountid=14771; http://www.wallacefoundation.org

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008). Ontario leadership framework. Retrieved May 12, 2012

from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/leadership/PVPLeadershipFramework.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008). Ontario leadership strategy. Retrieved on May 12, 2012

from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/leadership/actionPlan.html

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/653625

http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&id=doi:10.1080/15700760802416099

http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&id=doi:10.1080/15700760802416099


http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321501

21

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). Principal performance appraisal: technical requirements manual 2010. Retrieved May 12, 2012 from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/leadership/appraise.html

Queen, A.J. & Shumacher, D. (2006). A survival guide for the frazzled principal. Retrieved from

http://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Principal/2006/N-Dp18.pdf Reeves, D. B. (2004). Assessing educational leaders: Evaluating performance for improved

individual and organizational results. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press. Robinson, V., Hohepa, M. & Llyod, C. (2009). School Leadership and Student Outcomes:

Identifying What Works and Why (BES). New Zealand Ministry of Education, Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved February 3, 2011 from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/60180/BES-Leadership-Web.pdf

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New

York: Doubleday/Currency. Van Meter, E.J., & McMinn, C. <. c. <. (2001). Measuring a leader. Journal of Staff Development,

22(1), 32-35. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com/docview/62347696?accountid=14771; http://www.nsdc.org/news/issueDetails.cfm?issueID=77

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of

research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. A working paper Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning, 2550 South Parker Road, Suite 500, Aurora, CO 80014. Tel: 303-337-0990; Fax: 303-337-3005; Web site: http://www.mcrel.org. For full text: http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/ LeadershipOrganizationDevelopm(TRUNCATED). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com/docview/62171657?accountid=14771

Whitaker, T. (2003). What great principals do differently: Fifteen things that matter most.

Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Kruger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student

achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-425. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.qa.proquest.com/docview/62176223?accountid=14771

http://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Principal/2006/N-Dp18.pdf

http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/60180/BES-Leadership-Web.pdf

http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/60180/BES-Leadership-Web.pdf

http://www.nsdc.org/news/issueDetails.cfm?issueID=77



22

Appendix A – Survey Protocol

In 2010 the Ministry introduced a new Principal Performance Appraisal (PPA). The purpose of this

survey is to determine our members’ initial perspective and experiences in relations to the Ontario

Leadership Framework (OLF) and the new PPA. Please take a few minutes to complete the survey so that

we can continue to share the perspective of our members. Please be assured that your responses will

remain anonymous. The results of this study will be published in an upcoming issue of the Register.

Thank you for your participation.

1) Are you an Elementary or Secondary Administrator? (E/S)

2) Gender (M/F)

3) How many years have you been in administration? _____

In considering the Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF) and the appraisal process:

4) I consider myself knowledgeable about the OLF and use it to guide my own professional growth.

1……………………………2……………….….…3…………….….…...4…………………….5


5) I consider myself knowledgeable about the PPA and the requirements associated with it.

1……………………………2……………….….…3…………….….…...4…………………….5


6) My performance plan considered all five domains of the OLF.

1……………………………2……………….….…3…………….….…...4…………………….5


7) The discussion with my appraiser in developing my performance plan considered all five domains of

the OLF.

1……………………………2……………….….…3…………….….…...4…………………….5


8) My appraisal considered my ability to build a shared vision, foster the acceptance of group goals and

set and communicate high performance expectation (Setting Directions).

23

1……………………………2……………….….…3…………….….…...4…………………….5


9) My appraisal considered my ability to foster genuine trusting relationships with students, staff, families and communities, guided by a sense of mutual respect. (Building Relationships and Developing People)

1……………………………2……………….….…3…………….….…...4…………………….5


10) My appraisal considered my ability to build collaborative cultures, structure the organization for

success, and connect the school to its wider environment. (Developing the Organization)

1……………………………2……………….….…3…………….….…...4…………………….5


11) My appraisal considered my ability to set high expectations for learning outcomes and monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of instruction. My appraisal considered my ability to manage the school effectively so that everyone can focus on teaching and learning. (Leading the Instruction Program)

1……………………………2……………….….…3…………….….…...4…………………….5


12) My appraisal considered my ability to create conditions for student success and my accountability to students, parents, the community, supervisors and to the board for ensuring that students benefit from a high quality education. My appraisal considered my ability to be accountable for the goals set out in the school improvement plan. (Securing Accountability)

1……………………………2……………….….…3…………….….…...4…………………….5


13) Competencies and practices from the OLF were used as suggestions in guiding future direction in my practice as outlined in my summative report.

1……………………………2……………….….…3…………….….…...4…………………….5


24

14) My overall impression was that the all components of the OLF were woven into my appraisal process.

1……………………………2……………….….…3…………….….…...4…………………….5


15) Any additional comments (200 characters maximum):

25

Appendix B – Open Responses

I felt like my PPA was done TO me and that I was, at best, a passive participant helping my

SO fulfill their requirements.

The appraisal was not done in a timely manner following the timelines set forth by the

board. One of the concerns is that the appraisal is too subjective on the individual doing the

appraisal and the relationship between the appraiser and appraisee.

As a Vice-Principal in 2 schools I don’t have the opportunity to be a part of the school

success planning, leading instruction, or implementing too many new initiatives. Therefore

the appraisal process for persons like myself is limited to what you are assigned to do since

we do not have a consistent presence in the school.

My appraisal was thrown in at the last minute. No timelines were met. There is not enough

time in an administrator's day to do this, considering it takes two administrators available at

the same time to be able to be effective. I essentially wrote some stuff out that was

translated into the report.

It was first time my appraiser used the OLF. She was not totally familiar with it.

My answers are neutral to most of the questions given that I have not received a copy of my

appraisal, no feedback was discussed about my appraisal and the entire process was not

followed appropriately. Although I was told in September about being appraised, I did not

have any other conversation about it till the SO arrived in February unexpectedly for

supposedly three days of discussion in a row in the form of my appraisal. That then changed

to two days in March and I also did an EQ360. In May the SO alluded to the fact my

appraisal was not going to be satisfactory and asked if I was planning to retire. He then said

it would not be completed till after EQAO results were in. He sent and e-mail the first week

in September indicating he wanted to come and go over the appraisal but did not respond

to the dates offered and I have not heard from him until last week when my new SO asked

to see a copy of my appraisal and I indicated I had not received it.

My board uses their own framework, which is based on the OLF. Therefore, although the

competencies are different, the same information is covered.

26

I feel that this process strongly relies on the administrator and minimally relies on the

supervisor. The administrator does all the work in this process and then just hands it over to

be written in final form...not a very good process in my view

I love this PPA process!

Documents

The Ontario Leadership Framework and the Principal ... Report - OLF and the...The Ontario Leadership Framework and the Principal Performance Appraisal: How Connected are They?