The study attempts to formulate criteria to evaluate the work of the elementary school principal in city schools, subdividing his duties into five major phases, namely: (1) supervision, (2) administration, (3) organization, (4) clerical, and (5) other duties.

This study examined principals' and teachers' perceptions regarding both the importance of certain leadership skills and the ratings of principals' actual skills. There are strong theoretical bases for the use of principals' and teachers' perceptions in this study. The analysis of perceptions of leadership skills can lead to: (1) an increased awareness of principals' strengths and weaknesses; (2) greater communication between principals and teachers; and, (3) hopefully, increased productivity on the part of principals and teachers. The population for this study included a group of twenty-eight principals who participated in the Confederation of Oregon School Administrators Assessment Center, and teachers in those principals' schools. These principals represented the total number of Assessment Center participants who were promoted to their positions subsequent to their participation in the Center. Assessment Center predictions ratings of these principals' skills were compared to teachers' ratings of the same principals' skills. Research questions sought information in the following areas: (1) principals' perceptions of their own skills; (2) principals' perceptions of the importance of given skills; (3) principals' predictions of teachers' ratings of the importance of skills; (4) principals' predictions of teachers' ratings of principals' actual skills; (5) teachers' perceptions of principals' skills; (6) teachers' perceptions of the importance of given skills; and, (7) Assessment Center predictions ratings of principals' skills. The methodology for this study combined survey research with information provided by the COSA Assessment Center. Mailed surveys were used to collect data regarding principals' and teachers' perceptions of leadership skills. The results of this study suggested that there is a general agreement between principals and teachers regarding principals' leadership skills. Additionally, the predictions made regarding principals' skills by the Assessment Center accurately reflected teachers' perceptions of the same principals' skills in the field. The area of greatest difference in this study was in principals' perceptions of teachers' ratings. Principals generally predicted that teachers would rate the importance of skills lower than teachers actually rated them. Because teachers' perceptions of principals' skills are generally accurate, it can be concluded that teachers' ratings of their principals can play an important role in the total process of principals' evaluations.

This study was based on the assumption that classroom teachers were in an advantageous position to judge their principal's role behavior and their principal's administrative performance. The problem of this study was to determine whether or not significant differences existed between teachers' perceptions of their principal's role behavior; whether or not significant differences existed between teachers' perceptions of their principal's administrative performance; and whether or not there was any relationship between teachers' perceptions of their principal's role behavior and his administrative performance. The findings in this study led to the following conclusions: Factors such as sex, education level, teaching experience, school level, school size, and school district do not effect principal’s behavior or administrative performance. However, differences were found in teacher perceptions for teachers with 5 years or less of teaching experience, rural/urban school setting, principal’s sex don’t differ in their role behavior; differing instead in educational leadership ability. It is concluded that principals are least effective in the area of educational leadership when comparing the four areas of administrative decision-making, communications, general administrative behavior, and educational leadership. They are most effective in general administrative behavior. Principals, in general, tend to exhibit transactional behavior. The majority of teachers do not indicate that their principal's role behavior has any relationship to their administrative performance as school principals.

This study looked at possible relationships which exist between three personal characteristics variables believed to be associated with effective leadership in elementary schools. The three variables were (1) Principal Vision, (2) Principal Interpersonal Orientation and, (3) Principal Personal Values. The relationship between selected teacher, principal and school demographic variables and teacher's perceptions of their principal's vision was also explored. Data were collected from 51 principals and 841 teachers in elementary schools from 10 school districts in the Portland, Salem and Vancouver metropolitan areas. Teachers were asked to score their perceptions of their principal's vision on the School Vision Inventory. The principal was also asked to complete the Mach V interpersonal orientation scale, the Profile of Life Values and, his/her predictions of teachers responses on the School Vision Inventory. Data were analyzed by using one or more of the following statistical tests: MANOVA; ANOVA; Chi-square; and Pearson Product Moment Correlation. The major conclusions are: (1) principals perceived teachers to be less positive than they in fact were in their perceptions of the principal's ability to encourage others to make personal sacrifices to accomplish the principal's vision; (2) male teachers perceive that their principals include them more in the vision building process than do female teachers; (3) teachers younger than 26 were less positive in their perceptions of their principal's Internalization and tended to be less positive on other scales; (4) principals communicate their vision more effectively with those teachers who are in their first year with their current principal than any other group for vision exchange, sacrifice and total vision; (5) school and principal demographics have little impact on teacher perceptions of principal vision; (6) principals value being sensitive to the needs of others more than any of the other personal values and they value artistic expression the least; (7) with the exception of the Artistic values, male and female principals are relatively similar in their personal values; (8) principal vision and personal values are moderately related; and (9) the relationship of interpersonal orientation of the principal to teacher perceptions of principal vision is not statistically significant.

The intent of this study was to determine the evaluation policies and procedures for principals of public schools in Virginia. Specifically, the purposes of the study were to: (1) Describe the policies in and procedures currently in place for the evaluation of principals in Virginia’s public schools, (2) Determine if Virginia's public school principals believe that the policies and procedures by which they are evaluated affect their job performance, (3) Examine and describe one school division's principal evaluation policies and procedures, and (4) Compare and discuss school system descriptions of policies and procedures related to evaluation of principals with responses of principals describing those same policies and procedures. A descriptive survey method was used in this study. Data were collected from a random sampling of all public school principals in the state. A thirty-one item questionnaire was sent to each of the 337 participating principals. A response rate of 80.4% was attained. Descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) were employed to report the findings. The results of this study revealed that: 1. Principal evaluation policies and procedures are firmly established in the school divisions across Virginia. 2. Public school principals in Virginia indicated that their school division‘s principal evaluation policies and procedures have a positive impact on their job performance. 3. The principals and superintendent of one school system agree on most questions about their policies and procedures for principal evaluation. Areas of disagreement included: a procedure for reviewing principal evaluation policies and procedures, current need to revise policies and procedures, and the purpose of (on-the-job) observation as a component of principal evaluation. 4. When system-level responses were compared to principals' responses measuring knowledge of principal evaluation policies and procedures there was considerable agreement between groups. However, ten areas of disagreement were discovered. These areas included: a procedure to regularly review and revise evaluation policies and procedures, the establishment of mutually-developed goals for principal evaluation, who has input into principal evaluation, if on-the-job observation is a component of the evaluation process, and whether a dissenting statement is permitted. / Ed. D.

Problem The problem of this study was to ascertain the answer to the following question: What are the criteria and procedures used in the formal evaluation of secondary public school principals' performance in Virginia, and how important are these to the process? Further inquiries were made to determine the purposes of evaluating secondary public school principals. Procedures A four-point scale was employed in the questionnaire to assess the opinions of division superintendents regarding the importance of the evaluation criteria and procedures employed to evaluate the performance of secondary public school principals. The Likert four-point scale was used to allow respondents to indicate for each statement relative to the evaluation criteria and procedures a choice of one of four degrees of responses: very important, important, slightly important, or not important. Descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) were employed to analyze data relative to the problem, and the one-way analysis of variance was employed to determine if differences existed between demographic variables and responses of groups of division superintendents to the degrees of importance of the evaluation criteria and procedures. The Scheffe test was employed to determine which groups differed significantly at the .05 alpha level. Population Data were sought for the major survey from the population of division superintendents in 132 school divisions in Virginia. One hundred and five division superintendents completed and returned the major survey questionnaire. Division superintendents were chosen as the population to supply data for this study because they were the ones who legally were responsible for the evaluation of principals. Conclusions 1. The “Standards of Quality" evaluation criteria that pertained to the annual school plan, handbook of policies and procedures, coordinating services of persons working in the school, instructional supervision and assistance to teachers, and the cooperative evaluation program were very important to the formal evaluation process of secondary public school principals. Also, the "non-Standards of Quality" evaluation criteria that pertained to business and finance, school plant, and school community relations were. very important to the formal evaluation process of secondary public school principals. 2. The procedures that were employed to gather data to assess the principals' work performance were very important. Also, making personal visits to the school by the superintendent was a very important procedure to the formal evaluation process of secondary public school principals. 3. The most important purpose of the evaluation of secondary principals was to improve task performance and the least important purpose was to grant merit or performance pay. Recommendation The "Standards of Quality" and "non-Standards of Quality" evaluation criteria and procedures that division superintendents rated very important to the formal evaluation process of secondary public school principals should be continuously employed to evaluate the principals in Virginia. Specific findings, implications, ·and recommendations were offered. / Ed. D.

The purpose of the study was to investigate sent-role conflicts in expected leader behavior of elementary principals and whether the Real leader behavior of those principals more closely approximated that behavior expected by teachers or their immediate superior, an assistant superintendent. Three research questions guided the investigation: (1) Do teachers and an assistant superintendent have different expectations for the leader behavior of principals? (2) Does the actual leader behavior of principals, as perceived by principals, more closely approximate the behavior expected by the assistant superintendent or the behavior expected by teachers? (3) Does the actual leader behavior of principals, as perceived by teachers, more closely approximate the behavior expected by the assistant superintendent or the behavior expected by teachers? The data were gathered by means of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Form XII. The questionnaire was administered to 26 elementary principals to obtain perceptions of their Real leader behaviors, to 260 elementary teachers to ascertain perceptions of their principal's Real and Ideal leader behavior, and to the assistant superintendent to determine his perception of the Ideal leader behavior of principals. Means, standard deviations, and standard error of the means were calculated for the teachers' perceptions of the Real and Ideal leader behavior of principals on each of the LBDQ dimensions. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were calculated for the teachers perceptions (Real-Ideal) for the purpose of identifying schools having leadership role conflicts and to determine the apparent resolution. The analysis of the combined data indicated that principals' Real leader behavior was congruent with teacher expectations in 35% of the cases, with the assistant superintendent's expectations in 25% of the cases, with both the teachers' and assistant superintendent's expectations in 17.5% of the cases, and with neither the teachers' nor assistant superintendent's expectations in 22.5% of the cases. / Ed. D.

An activity for principal improvement that has not received much attention is the structured management effectiveness profile. The concept is to provide the principal and a group of teachers at that campus with an opportunity for assessment of the principal's management and leadership skills. A comparison between the two provides the principal with information on their perceived management strengths and weaknesses. One such profile, available through the American Association of School Administrators is the Educational Administrator Effectiveness Profile (EAEP). The EAEP was originally given to 66 principals in Tarrant County, Texas. This study reports the results of reassessment of 40 of those principals after a five year period.

The problem of this study is to demonstrate the use of Wells's criteria for evaluating the administration of the elementary school by evaluating the administration of two elementary school principals.

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Master of Education in the Department of Educational Planning and Administration at the University of Zululand, 2005. / Schools are judged by their results and the quality of learners they produce. The quality of learners depends, among other things, on the amount of knowledge and skills he or she acquired at school. Motivation, both intrinsic and extrinsic, plays a crucial role in the learner's performance and acquisition of knowledge. The principal, through the effective exercise of his leadership role, motivates learners to make concerted efforts to improve their academic performance. A literature study and empirical investigation were conducted to determine the principal's role in influencing learner academic performance. The study investigated the kind of leadership that the principal has to exercise in order to contribute to the improvement of learner academic performance. It also investigated the leadership style that the principal has to adopt to improve learner performance. Factors that hinder effective leadership and negatively affect learner performance were also highlighted. A key finding was that principals do not involve learners in making decisions on matters affecting them. Their leadership style has an autocratic bias and they cannot strike a balance between democratic and autocratic leadership. Most principals also did not provide instructional leadership in their schools by, among other things, monitoring learner progress, showing high expectations of learners and visiting classes regularly to ensure that teaching and learning take place. A key recommendation was that principals should keep communication channels open so that they are informed about the feelings, needs and problems learners encounter in schools. Monitoring of learner progress cannot be overemphasized. It was recommended that principals should involve learners in making decisions on matters affecting them. It was also recommended that effective leadership requires a balance between democratic and autocratic leadership styles.