This study investigated causal links between states’ principal evaluation policies and academic achievement among economically disadvantaged students, focusing on two policy levers: (1) required inclusion of student growth data (output-based) and (2) mandated observations or site visits (input-based). States enacting the output-based principal evaluation policy did not typically have higher National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) achievement scores among eighth-grade free or reduced lunch eligible (FRL) students than states without these policies. In contrast, the input-based policy had a small-to-moderate positive effect on eighth-grade reading achievement scores, particularly among FRL students. The importance of focusing on principal behaviors rather than student achievement is discussed.
AlexanderN.JangS. T. (2020). Policy, poverty, and student achievement in an age of increased accountability. Educational Policy, 34(4), 674–704.
2.
AmreinA. L.BerlinerD. C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v10n18.2002
3.
Amrein-BeardsleyA. (2009). The unintended, pernicious consequences of “staying the course” on the United State’ no child left behind policy. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 4(6), 1–13.
4.
AndersonL. M.TurnbullB. J. (2016). Evaluating and supporting principals. Building a stronger principalship. Policy Studies Associates, Inc.
5.
BakerE. L.BartonP. E.Darling-HammondL.HaertelE.LaddH. F.LinnR. L.RavitchD.RothsteinR.ShavelsonR. J.ShepardL. A. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/bp278/
6.
BartanenB.HusainA. N.LiebowitzD. D. (2023). Rethinking principal effects on student outcomes (EdWorkingPaper: 22-621). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/r5sf-3918
7.
BerlinerD. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287–302.
BleibergJ.BrunnerE.HarbatkinE.KraftM. A.SpringerM. G. (2021). The effect of teacher evaluation on achievement and attainment: Evidence from statewide reforms. Annenberg Institute at Brown University.
10.
BormanG. D.HewesG. M.OvermanL. T.BrownS. (2002). Comprehensive school reform and student achievement: A meta-analysis. Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk.
11.
CallawayB.Sant’AnnaP. H. C. (2021). Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 200–230.
12.
CapraT. (2009). Poverty and its impact on education: Today and tomorrow. Thought & Action, 25, 75–81.
13.
CareyR. L. (2014). A cultural analysis of the achievement gap discourse: Challenging the language and labels used in the work of school reform. Urban Education, 49(4), 440–468.
14.
CliffordM.HansenU. J.WraightS. (2014). A practical guide to designing comprehensive principal evaluation systems: A tool to assist in the development of principal evaluation systems. American Institutes for Research.
15.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum.
CooksonP. W.Jr. (2013). Class rules: Exposing inequality in American high schools. Teachers College Press.
18.
CorralD.YangM. (2024). An introduction to the difference-in-differences design in education policy research. Asia Pacific Education Review, 25(3), 663–672.
Darling-HammondL. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. Teachers College Press.
21.
Darling-HammondL. (2015). Can value added add value to teacher evaluation?Educational Researcher, 44(2), 132–137.
22.
DavisS.KearneyK.SandersN.ThomasC.LeonR. (2011). The policies and practices of principal evaluation: A review of the literature. WestEd.
23.
de ChaisemartinC.D’HaultfœuilleX. (2020). Two-way fixed effects estimators with heterogeneous treatment effects. American Economic Review, 110(9), 2964–2996.
24.
DeeT. S.JacobB. (2011). The impact of no child left behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446.
25.
DeeT. S.JacobB.SchwartzN. L. (2013). The effects of NCLB on school resources and practices. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(2), 252–279.
26.
DeMatthewsD. (2015). Making sense of social justice leadership: A case study of a principal’s experiences to create a more inclusive school. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 14(2), 139–166.
27.
DominaT.Pharris-CiurejN.PennerA. M.PennerE. K.BrummetQ.PorterS. R.SanabriaT. (2018). Is free and reduced-price lunch a valid measure of educational disadvantage?Educational Researcher, 47(9), 539–555.
28.
DonaldsonM.MavrogordatoM.DoughertyS. M.GhanemR. A.YoungsP. (2021). Principal evaluation under the elementary and secondary every student succeeds act: A comprehensive policy review. Education Finance and Policy, 16(2), 347–361.
29.
DonaldsonM.MavrogordatoM.YoungsP.DaughertyS. (2020). Appraising principal evaluation and development: Current research and future directions. In YoungsP.KimJ.MavrogordatoM. (Eds.), Exploring principal development and teacher outcomes (pp. 56–68). Routledge.
30.
EntwisleD. R.AlexanderK. L.OlsonL. S. (2007). Early schooling: The handicap of being poor and male. Sociology of Education, 80(2), 114–138.
31.
FirestoneW. A. (2014). Teacher evaluation policy and conflicting theories of motivation. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 100–107.
32.
FreskoB.Levy-FeldmanI. (2023). Principals’ implementation of teacher evaluation and its relationship to intended purpose, perceived benefits, training and background variables. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 30(1), 18–32.
33.
FullerE. J.HollingworthL. (2014). A bridge too far? Challenges in evaluating principal effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3), 466–499.
34.
FullerE. J.HollingworthL.LiuJ. (2015). Evaluating state principal evaluation plans across the United States. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 10(3), 164–192.
35.
FullerE. J.JohnsonJ. F. (2001). Can state accountability systems drive improvements in school performance for children of color and children from low-income homes?Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 260–283.
36.
GallagherC. (2000). A seat at the table: Teachers reclaiming assessment through rethinking accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(7), 502–507.
37.
GoldringE.CravensX.MurphyJ.PorterA.ElliottS.CarsonB. (2009). The evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban districts assess leadership?Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 19–39.
38.
GoldringE. B.MavrogordatoM.HaynesK. T. (2015). Multisource principal evaluation data: Principals’ orientations and reactions to teacher feedback regarding their leadership effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(4), 572–599.
39.
Goodman-BaconA. (2021). Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 254–277.
40.
GreenbergE. (2018). New measures of student poverty: Replacing free and reduced-price lunch status based on household forms with direct certification. Urban Institute.
41.
GrissomJ. A.EgaliteA. J.LindsayC. A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace Foundation. https://doi.org/10.59656/EL-SB1065.001
42.
GrissomJ. A.KalogridesD.LoebS. (2015). Using student test scores to measure principal performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 3–28.
43.
HallingerP.GümüşS.BellibaşM. Ş. (2020). ‘Are principals instructional leadersyet?’ A science map of the knowledge base on instructional leadership, 1940-2018. Scientometrics, 122(3), 1629–1650.
44.
HalversonR.KelleyC.ShawJ. (2014). A CALL for improved school leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(6), 57–60.
45.
HanushekE. A.RaymondM. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297–327.
46.
HanushekE. A.RivkinS. G. (2007). Pay, working conditions, and teacher quality. Future of Children, 17(1), 69–86.
47.
HarrisD.HerringtonC. (2006). Accountability, standards, and the growing achievement gap: Lessons from the past half-century. American Journal of Education, 112(2), 209–238.
48.
HarwellM. (2019). Don’t expect too much: The limited usefulness of common SES measures. Journal of Experiential Education, 87(3), 353–366.
49.
HillC. J.BloomH. S.BlackA. R.LipseyM. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2(3), 172–177.
JacquesC.CliffordM.HornungK. (2012). State policies on principal evaluation: Trends in a changing landscape. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
52.
JangS. T. (2018). The implications of intersectionality of race, gender, and socioeconomic status on Southeast Asian female students’ educational outcomes: Critical quantitative intersectionality analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 55(6), 1268–1306.
53.
JangS. T.AlexanderN. A. (2025). Exploring the link between states’ principal evaluation policies and student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X251322727
54.
JangS. T.LeeJ. (2025). The equity implications of principal evaluation for student achievement: A critical quantitative policy analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737251320340
55.
KeeleL.StevensonR. T. (2021). Causal interaction and effect modification: Same model, different concepts. Political Science Research and Methods, 9(3), 641–649.
56.
KelleyC.HalversonR. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of leadership for learning: A next generation formative evaluation and feedback system. Journal of Applied Research on Children, 3(2), 1–24.
57.
KhalifaM. A.GoodenM. A.DavisJ. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.
58.
KraftM. A.BrunnerE. J.DoughertyS. M.SchwegmanD. J. (2020). Teacher accountability reforms and the supply and quality of new teachers. Journal of Public Economics, 188, 1–24.
59.
KraftM. A.GilmourA. F. (2017). Revisiting the widget effect: Teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46(5), 234–249.
60.
KruegerA. B. (1999). Experimental estimates of education production functions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(2), 497–532.
61.
LacourM.TissingtonL. D. (2011). The effects of poverty on academic achievement. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(7), 522–527.
62.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2007). Pushing past the achievement gap: An essay on the language of deficit. Journal of Negro Education, 76(3), 316–323.
63.
LareauA.HorvatE. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72(1), 37–53.
64.
LauerP. A.AkibaM.WilkersonS. B.ApthorpH. S.SnowD.Martin-GlennM. (2004). The effectiveness of out-of-school-time strategies in assisting low-achieving students in reading and mathematics: A research synthesis. Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education.
65.
LeeJ.WongK. K. (2004). The impact of accountability on racial and socioeconomic equity: Considering both school resources and achievement outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 797–832.
66.
LeithwoodK.SunJ.SchumackerR. (2020). How school leadership influences student learning: A test of “The four paths model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(4), 570–599.
LiuL.WangY.XuY. (2024). A practical guide to counterfactual estimators for causal inference with time-series cross-sectional data. American Journal of Political Science, 68(1), 160–176.
69.
LouisK. S.DretzkeB.WahlstromK. (2010). How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 315–336.
70.
McNeilL. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. Routledge.
71.
MullerC.SchillerK. S. (2000). Leveling the playing field? Students’ educational attainment and states’ performance testing. Sociology of Education, 73(3), 196–218.
72.
MurphyJ.ElliottS. N.GoldringE.PorterA. C. (2006). Learning-centered leadership: A conceptual foundation. Learning Sciences Institute, Vanderbilt University.
NielsenS. R.LavigneA. L. (2020). Principal evaluation in the United States: A national review of state statutes and regulations. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(143), 143–236.
75.
OakesJ. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. Yale University Press.
76.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). Equity in education and on the labour market: Main findings from education at a glance 2024. OECD Education Policy Perspectives, 107, 1–39.
77.
ParkerL. (2000, April). Comments for “accountability for equity: Can state policy leverage social justice?” [Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
78.
PophamW. J. (2016). Standardized tests: Purpose is the point. Educational Leadership, 73(7), 44–49.
79.
PutmanH.WalshK. (2021). State of the states 2021: Teacher preparation policy. National Council on Teacher Quality.
80.
RaddS. I.GenerettG. G.GoodenM. A.TheoharisG. (2021). Five practices for equity-focused school leadership. ASCD.
81.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
82.
ReardonS. F.KalogridesD.ShoresK. (2019). The geography of racial/ethnic test score gaps. American Journal of Sociology, 124(4), 1164–1221.
83.
RobinsonV. M. J.LloydC. A.RoweK. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.
84.
RossE.WalshK. (2019). State of the states 2019: Teacher and principal evaluation policy. National Council on Teacher Quality.
85.
ScheurichJ. J.SkrlaL.JohnsonJ. F.Jr. (2004). Thinking carefully about equity and accountability. In SkrlaL.ScheurichJ. J. (Eds.), Educational equity and accountability: Paradigms, policies and politics (pp. 13–28). Psychology Press.
86.
ShieldsC. M. (2014). The war on poverty must be won: Educators can make a difference. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 2(2), 124–146.
87.
ShieldsC. M.HesbolK. A. (2020). Transformative leadership approaches to inclusion, equity, and social justice. Journal of School Leadership, 30(1), 3–22.
88.
SkrlaL.ScheurichJ. J. (Eds.) (2004). Educational equity and accountability: Paradigms, policies and politics. Psychology Press.
89.
SkrlaL.ScheurichJ. J.Johnson JrJ. F.KoschoreckJ. W. (2001). Accountability for equity: Can state policy leverage social justice?International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 237–260.
90.
SteeleC. M. (2012). Extending and applying stereotype threat research: A brief essay. In InzlichtM.SchmaderT. (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 297–303). Oxford University Press.
91.
SunM.YoungsP. (2009). How does district principal evaluation affect learning-centered principal leadership? Evidence from Michigan school districts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(4), 411–445.
92.
TheoharisG. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221–258.
93.
ValenciaR. R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. RoutledgeFalmer.
94.
VernezG.ZimmerR. (2007). Interpreting the effects of Title I supplemental educational services. RAND.
95.
WangJ.GoldschmidtP. (2003). Importance of middle school mathematics on high school students’ mathematics achievement. Journal of Education and Research, 97(1), 3–17.
