Questioning the Use of Outcome Measures to Evaluate Principal Preparation Programs

Edward J. Fuller, Liz Hollingworth

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Policymakers are proposing the use of outcome measures as indicators of effective principal preparation programs. The three most common metrics recommended are: (1) graduates’ effectiveness in improving student achievement test scores, (2) graduate job placement rates, and (3) principal job retention once employed. This article explores the use of these three measures as indicators of program effectiveness by reviewing existing empirical research, employing program evaluation methodology to review potential approaches, and applying program evaluation standards to the evaluation effort. We conclude that the effort to evaluate principal preparation programs using these outcome measures is far less accurate than policymakers assume.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)167-188
Number of pages22
JournalLeadership and Policy in Schools
Volume17
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 3 2018

Fingerprint

evaluation
graduate
achievement test
empirical research
Preparation
methodology
Program evaluation
Politicians
student
Evaluation
Evaluation methodologies
Student achievement
Reviewing
Research program
Placement
Empirical research
Test scores

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Education
  • Strategy and Management

Cite this

@article{8480e32492aa45b7a6e8596b12d0f8c6,
title = "Questioning the Use of Outcome Measures to Evaluate Principal Preparation Programs",
abstract = "Policymakers are proposing the use of outcome measures as indicators of effective principal preparation programs. The three most common metrics recommended are: (1) graduates’ effectiveness in improving student achievement test scores, (2) graduate job placement rates, and (3) principal job retention once employed. This article explores the use of these three measures as indicators of program effectiveness by reviewing existing empirical research, employing program evaluation methodology to review potential approaches, and applying program evaluation standards to the evaluation effort. We conclude that the effort to evaluate principal preparation programs using these outcome measures is far less accurate than policymakers assume.",
author = "Fuller, {Edward J.} and Liz Hollingworth",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1080/15700763.2016.1270332",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "167--188",
journal = "Leadership and Policy in Schools",
issn = "1570-0763",
publisher = "Swets & Zeitlinger",
number = "2",

}

Questioning the Use of Outcome Measures to Evaluate Principal Preparation Programs. / Fuller, Edward J.; Hollingworth, Liz.

In: Leadership and Policy in Schools, Vol. 17, No. 2, 03.04.2018, p. 167-188.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Questioning the Use of Outcome Measures to Evaluate Principal Preparation Programs

AU - Fuller, Edward J.

AU - Hollingworth, Liz

PY - 2018/4/3

Y1 - 2018/4/3

N2 - Policymakers are proposing the use of outcome measures as indicators of effective principal preparation programs. The three most common metrics recommended are: (1) graduates’ effectiveness in improving student achievement test scores, (2) graduate job placement rates, and (3) principal job retention once employed. This article explores the use of these three measures as indicators of program effectiveness by reviewing existing empirical research, employing program evaluation methodology to review potential approaches, and applying program evaluation standards to the evaluation effort. We conclude that the effort to evaluate principal preparation programs using these outcome measures is far less accurate than policymakers assume.

AB - Policymakers are proposing the use of outcome measures as indicators of effective principal preparation programs. The three most common metrics recommended are: (1) graduates’ effectiveness in improving student achievement test scores, (2) graduate job placement rates, and (3) principal job retention once employed. This article explores the use of these three measures as indicators of program effectiveness by reviewing existing empirical research, employing program evaluation methodology to review potential approaches, and applying program evaluation standards to the evaluation effort. We conclude that the effort to evaluate principal preparation programs using these outcome measures is far less accurate than policymakers assume.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85009826167&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85009826167&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/15700763.2016.1270332

DO - 10.1080/15700763.2016.1270332

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85009826167

VL - 17

SP - 167

EP - 188

JO - Leadership and Policy in Schools

JF - Leadership and Policy in Schools

SN - 1570-0763

IS - 2

ER -