More than half of LSCs conduct a comprehensive principal evaluation with explicit criteria, but 12 percent did no evaluation and principals offer more guarded views than other members¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 1997 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2000: local conditions change quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? More than half of LSC members report a formal evaluation process with explicit criteria, a third report a minimal evaluation, and 12 percent report no evaluation of the principal. → Susan Ryan 1997 q2 i? Principals are more guarded than other members: less than half say they were informed of evaluation criteria at the beginning of the year, versus two-thirds of other council members. → Susan Ryan 1997 (2)

Evidence¶

Susan Ryan 1997¶

Susan Ryan, Anthony S. Bryk, Gudelia Lopez, Kimberley P. Williams, Kathleen Hall, Stuart Luppescu. (1997). Charting Reform: LSCs - Local Leadership at Work. Consortium on Chicago School Research. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/charting-reform-lscs%E2%80%94local-leadership-work

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Survey of ten questions on the principal evaluation process (Table 18): more than half report a comprehensive or very comprehensive evaluation, another third a minimal evaluation, and "Twelve percent of the members report that the LSC did no evaluation of the prin- cipal."

"Twelve percent of the members report that the LSC did no evaluation of the prin- cipal. This is a troubling sign for these councils, given the centrality of the principals' work to school improvement."

Susan Ryan 1997 (2)¶

Susan Ryan, Anthony S. Bryk, Gudelia Lopez, Kimberley P. Williams, Kathleen Hall, Stuart Luppescu. (1997). Charting Reform: LSCs - Local Leadership at Work. Consortium on Chicago School Research. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/charting-reform-lscs%E2%80%94local-leadership-work

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Comparison of principal responses with other council members on evaluation-process items (Table 19); the greatest disparities concerned clarity, timing, and impact of the evaluation. The authors expect such discrepancies between those doing and receiving evaluations.

"Less than half of the principals say they were informed of the evaluation criteria at the be- ginning of the year, compared to two- thirds positive responses from other council members"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• An estimated 19 percent of Local School Councils are nonfunctional — related
• LSC members' self-assessments show little variation among principals, teachers, parents, and community representatives, and fewer than 10 percent view their councils negatively — related
• Most LSCs are active in School Improvement Plan development, but fewer than a quarter are highly involved in the budget process — related
• Principals credit LSCs with helping initiate new school-community partnerships, supporting the claim that LSCs build social capital in urban neighborhoods — related
• Only 4 percent of LSCs show three or more signs of inactivity, and the most common problem is having fewer than two active committees — related
• Teacher views of Local School Council contribution differ sharply between top and bottom quartile schools — related