Thesis (M.Ed.)--Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2005. / Bibliography: leaves 33-36.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2004. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 393-404).

The study was designed to facilitate the development of a set of guidelines which could be used by administrative personnel at Kokomo-Center Township Consolidated School Corporation (KCTCSC) in planning and implementing a program of administrative evaluation. A review of literature and research concerning administrative evaluation programs was made to identify principles and desirable practices relative to the development of evaluation philosophy and activities. The review of literature also was intended to focus upon the purpose of evaluation, responsibilities for making evaluations, criteria for evaluation, and acceptance of evaluation procedures and techniques by the administrative team members.The study included a review and analysis of evaluation programs conducted within the nineteen member school systems of the Indiana Public School Study Council as of January 1979. Twelve superintendents of the member school systems provided written descriptive materials. Selected materials were analyzed in order to determine the nature, scope, and procedural characteristics of practical, ongoing evaluation programs.The study also included a KCTCSC team survey. The survey was designed by a committee of representative administrators to solicit the opinions of all administrative team members of KCTCSC on eight specific areas affecting an evaluation program.Conclusions drawn from the findings of a review of the literature, the Indiana Public School Study Council Member Superintendent's Questionnaire, and the Kokomo Administrative Team Evaluation Survey Questionnaire were as follows.A. Administrative performance can and should be evaluated on a regular basis.B. Authorities are not in agreement that only one process of evaluation is correct.C. Evaluation may include two main purposes: the first, to help the evaluatee establish relevant performance objectives and work systematically toward objective achievement; and secondly, to assess the evaluatee's present performance in accordance with prescribed standards.D. Evaluation should require the evaluator(s) to assess the. performance of the evaluatee by rating the evaluatee on a value scale that may have varying degrees of excellence.E. Management by Objectives (MBO) should be a supplement to evaluation procedures that stress rating. Self-evaluation should always be encouraged.F. Formal evaluation of administrative team members should be conducted annually within the time framework of individual state laws. Informal evaluation should be a continuous process, on a day-to-day basis supplementing the formal process.G. The superior or supervisor should conduct the formal evaluation with informal documented evaluation input from peers, staff, students, parents, community, and evaluatee as situations and/or time warrants.H. Particular attention should be paid to amassing specific documentary evidence regarding each behavioral characteristic to be assessed.I. Evaluation should be supported by data, records, commendations, and critical comments, work achieved, spotchecks, special activities and awards.J. Little new information, if any, should be saved for the formal appraisal. Evaluation should concentrate on guidance and counseling, not solely on checking up on the evaluatee.K. The evaluator should enter the evaluation process with a mutual, unprejudiced, and unbiased attitude with respect to the evaluatee.L. The best evaluation system is of no value if the information is simply gathered and stored or ignored.M. Improvement of evaluatee performance involved two processes, assessment of evaluatee and in-service or job development.Guideline recommendations for planning and implementing an administrative evaluation program touch on the following considerations: the responsibilities of the board of school trustees, the superintendent of schools, and the evaluation committee which has been established by the superintendent of schools. Implementation and follow-up recommendations are also a part of the guideline recommendations made as a result of the study.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--West Virginia University, 2002. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains x, 157 p. : ill. Vita. Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 112-126).

Thesis (D. Ed.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2002. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Available also from UMI Company.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2002. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 256-265). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--West Virginia University, 2002. / Vita. Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 112-126).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2002. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Available also from UMI Company.

The purpose of this study was to identify possible differences in the role expectations held by selected referent groups of the Bilingual Education Administrator. The study employed a questionnaire as the principal data-gathering instrument. The role expectations held by the selected referent groups were identified and compared. The "jury method" was used in the development of the initial data-gathering instrument, and a jury of experts identified a list of functions of the Bilingual Education Administrator. A selection panel of coders categorized the functions into five major administrative functions. The final questionnaire was distributed to a sample of 500 subjects in the State of Arizona. The six referent groups studied were found to be in general agreement when the role of the Bilingual Education Administrator was treated generically. However, disagreement was disclosed in one out of five major administrative functions and in four out of 23 specific functions. When the role was analyzed according to the five major administrative functions, disagreement was encountered in the innovative and change agent functions as bilingual education program directors and elementary teachers not in bilingual education programs were compared. It was also found that bilingual education program directors assigned a significantly higher priority to innovation and change agentry. When each of the 23 specific functions (listed under the major administrative functions) were analyzed, significant differences were noted in the functions dealing with (1) the integration of philosophy, goals, and objectives, (2) recruiting and hiring, (3) parent involvement, and (4) local financial support for bilingual education. In drawing general conclusions, it can be said that membership in a particular referent group can be considered a reasonable predictor of certain expectations of a role. Educational administration preparation programs should include, in their course requirements, sufficient content dealing with bilingual education theory, curriculum, program models, and research findings. In order to lessen the degree of conflict which now surrounds the role of the Bilingual Education Administrator, it may be advisable, in some cases, to change some of those functions which ordinarily cause disagreement and assign them to other superordinates.

No description available.