Why Principal Evaluation Still Matters (and Why It Often Feels So Complicated)
School districts are constantly balancing competing priorities: compliance and creativity, accountability and improvement, efficiency and relationships. In the AERA Open study “Doing the ‘Real’ Work,” researchers examined how superintendents in 21 small- and medium-sized districts made sense of state principal evaluation policies—and how that sensemaking shaped what actually happened in schools.
This matters because principals are central to student outcomes. They influence instruction by supporting teachers, protecting time for learning, and shaping school culture. Yet principal evaluation systems—especially those redesigned since 2009—often assume a one-size-fits-all model: same rubric, same process, same weights, same “right” leadership behaviors across very different district realities.
For service providers like TinyEYE, which partners with schools to deliver online therapy services, these findings offer a valuable reminder: implementation is never just about the policy on paper. It is about the people doing the work, the context they are working in, and the resources available to support students.
The Core Idea: Superintendents Interpret Policy Through Their Beliefs and Their Context
The study focuses on a concept called
sensemaking
—how leaders interpret policy messages and translate them into action. Superintendents do not simply “implement” state rules like a checklist. They filter expectations through:Their beliefs about what principals should do
Their experiences with evaluation and leadership
The realities of their district (resources, staffing, student needs, performance pressure)
That interpretation shapes two big parts of evaluation:
Process: How closely leaders follow required steps (meetings, observations, scoring, weights)
Focus: What leadership behaviors get emphasized (instructional leadership vs. management, relationships, community engagement, etc.)
What the Study Found: Process and Focus Shift in Different Directions
The researchers found a pattern that is both surprising and important for equity.
1) Lower-Performing Districts: More Likely to Follow the Process—But Shift the Focus
Superintendents in lower-performing districts more often reported adhering to the state-required evaluation process. That meant doing the formal meetings, observations, and documentation as required.
Why? Many described a belief in alignment, coherence, and compliance. Some felt the state system was reasonable. Others saw it as consistent with existing accountability routines already present in their district.
However, when it came to the focus of evaluation, these same leaders were more likely to move away from a narrow emphasis on instructional leadership. Instead, they emphasized multiple leadership demands, especially managerial leadership—because their principals were dealing with urgent operational realities such as staffing shortages, student crises, discipline, paperwork, and limited support services.
In other words: they did the required steps, but the conversations often centered on what it took to keep the building functioning.
2) Higher- and Mid-Performing Districts: More Likely to Modify the Process—But Keep the Instructional Focus
Superintendents in higher- and mid-performing districts were far more likely to report modifying the formal evaluation process. Many described evaluation as “fluid,” “ongoing,” or “organic,” prioritizing coaching conversations over rigid structures.
Some were openly skeptical that formal evaluation systems produced meaningful improvement. They minimized compliance behaviors and focused on what they considered the “real work” of leadership development: frequent feedback, relationship-based coaching, and continuous improvement.
Yet, these same leaders were more likely to maintain the state’s intended focus on instructional leadership when evaluating principals. Many framed instructional leadership as the core of the principalship—sometimes suggesting that management was foundational but ultimately “lower order” compared to leading teaching and learning.
A Key Detail: Evaluation Rubrics Heavily Weight Instructional Leadership
Across districts, the evaluation rubrics themselves strongly emphasized instruction. On average, about 82% of rubric indicators fell into the “Schooling and Instruction” domain, while management indicators made up a much smaller share.
This design choice becomes an equity concern when principals in under-resourced settings are evaluated using a tool that assumes they have the time, staffing, and student supports necessary to prioritize instructional leadership every day.
Equity Implications: When “High Stakes” Meet Unequal Conditions
The study raises a caution: if principal evaluation ratings are tied to high-stakes outcomes (incentive pay, sanctions, dismissal), principals in lower-performing districts may be disadvantaged.
Why? Because the system disproportionately rewards instructional leadership behaviors, but lower-performing districts often face conditions that make it harder to sustain that focus, including:
Limited access to student support services (e.g., social work, psychology)
Substitute shortages that disrupt observation schedules and instructional routines
Higher day-to-day crisis management demands
Greater pressure to demonstrate compliance with state requirements
From a special education lens, this resonates deeply. When student needs are intensive and staffing is thin, leaders spend more time problem-solving around services, schedules, and safety. If evaluation systems do not account for those realities, they risk measuring “ideal conditions leadership” rather than “effective leadership in context.”
What This Means for District Leaders: Practical Takeaways
Districts do not need to abandon evaluation to make it more useful. But they do need to design and implement it with context, capacity, and fairness in mind.
Consider these questions when reviewing principal evaluation practices:
Is our evaluation process improving practice—or just producing paperwork? If it is mostly compliance, it may be time to strengthen coaching structures.
Does our rubric reflect the full scope of leadership in our schools? Instruction matters, but so do operations, staffing, community trust, and student support systems.
Are we evaluating principals against expectations that require resources they do not have? If so, ratings may reflect resource gaps more than leadership quality.
Do principals in high-need schools receive evaluation that is more supportive, not more punitive? High-need settings deserve the strongest development systems.
Where TinyEYE Fits: Supporting the Conditions That Make Instructional Leadership Possible
One of the clearest messages from the study is that principals’ ability to focus on instruction is shaped by whether student needs are adequately supported. When schools lack access to key services, administrators get pulled into constant triage.
Online therapy services can be part of the solution—helping districts expand access to speech-language pathology, occupational therapy, mental health supports, and other related services. When student support systems are stronger, principals can spend less time scrambling for scarce services and more time building sustainable instructional systems.
In that way, service delivery models are not separate from leadership and evaluation—they are part of the ecosystem that determines what “real work” looks like in a school building.
Final Thought: Policy Is Written in One Place, but It’s Lived Somewhere Else
The AERA Open study reminds us that implementation is shaped by people and place. Superintendents and principals are not resisting policy simply to be difficult; they are adapting it to real constraints, real student needs, and real district pressures. The challenge for policymakers and district leaders is to ensure that evaluation systems promote growth and equity—not just compliance.
For more information, please follow this link.
