Evaluation of Principal Performance in Public and Private Sector Schools

Akhtar, Iram and Cheema, Khaliq Ur Rehman (2013): Evaluation of Principal Performance in Public and Private Sector Schools. Published in: International Journal of Management & Organizational Studies , Vol. 2, No. 3 (September 2013): pp. 23-30.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the performance in context of student learning of principals in public sector and private sector schools. For this purpose five main domains were used as variables are: 1) teaching, learning and professional growth, 2) Inter-personal and inter-professional relationship and collaboration, 3) Parent and faculty involvement in decision making, 4) Vision and values, 5) Innovation and change. The population for this study was selected randomly. The target sample was belonged to post-primary and secondary schools. Thus the results summarized different findings. Principals perform more effectively in private sector schools as compare to public schools.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Principal performance, Professional development, inter-personal, and inter-professionalism, Vision, Innovation.
• Subjects: M - Business Administration and Business Economics ; Marketing ; Accounting ; Personnel Economics > M5 - Personnel Economics > M52 - Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects

References

P. Enueme and J. Egwunyenga 2008 Principals’ Instructional Leadership Roles and Effect onTeachers’ Job Performance: A Case Study of Secondary Schools in Asaba Metropolis, Delta State, Nigeria, Kamla-Raj J. Soc. Sci., 16(1): 13-17 (2008)

2. Dr Sharma(n.d), ATTRIBUTES OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS- LEADERSHIP QUALITIES & CAPACITIES

3. Karunanayake (n.d), Leadership Styles of Principals in Sri Lanaka, http://www.maxwellsci.com/print/crjet/v3-84-92.pdf on 4.1.2012 on 1.5.2011.

4. M. Brown & A. Anfara, Jr.(2003), Paving the Way for Change:Visionary Leadership in Action at the Middle LevelNASSP Bulletin _ Vol. 87 No. 635 June 2003

5. Fallah (n.d), Distributed Form of Leadership in Communities of Practice (CoPs) Int. J. Emerg. Sci., 1(3), 357-370, September 2011 ISSN: 2222-4254

6. Timothy C. (n.d), EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP STYLE ON ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE: A SURVEY OF SELECTED SMALL SCALE ENTERPRISES IN IKOSI-KETU COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AREA OF LAGOS STATE, NIGERIA Australian Journal of Business and Management Research Vol.1 No.7 [100-111] | October-2011

7. Temkin (n.d), the case for community leadership, temkin / The Case for Community Leadership.

8. Doherty,( March, 2003), A MODEL FOR COMMUNITY-BASED YOUTH LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT, Effective Communities Project Ederer† and Manso‡ July 14, 2012 Is Pay-for-Performance Detrimental to Innovation.

10. EVALUATING PRINCIPALS Balancing accountability with professional growth

11. Evaluating Outcomes and Impacts: A Scan of 55 Leadership Development Programs

12. NC School Executives: Principals Revised May 2008, North Carolina School Executive: Principal Evaluation Process

13. John Gaventa,July 2004) Representation, Community Leadership and Participation: Citizen Involvement in Neighbourhood Renewal and Local Governance Prepared for the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit Office of Deputy Prime Minister

14. W. MEES May 2008, THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP, SCHOOL CULTURE, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN MISSOURI MIDDLE SCHOOLS

15. Sharma, (2012); Instructional Leadership Model through Asian Principals’Perspectives; 2012 International Conference on Education and Management Innovation IPEDR vol.30 (2012)

16. Florian Ederer† and Gustavo Manso, July 14, 2012; Is Pay-for-Performance Detrimental to Innovation?

17. R. Childress, January 2009 Leadership Behavior and Organization Performance The “Shadow of the Leader” Concept

18. Petegem, P.M. Creemers, Rosseel, Aelterman, January 2006; Relationships between teacher characteristics, interpersonal teacher behaviour and teacher wellbeing; Journal of Classroom Interaction

19. Marshall, August 21, 2011; Principal Evaluation Rubrics

20. July 2011; Austrailian institute of teaching and school learning;National Professional Standard for Principals

21. Shmueli, April 2009; Warfield, and Kaufman Enhancing Community Leadership Negotiation Skills to Build Civic Capacity;Negotiation Journal

22. Maryland State Board of Education, February 2005; Maryland Instructional Leadership Framework

23. Hanum Suraya & Nordin Yunus, (n.d), Principal Leadership Styles in High-Academic Performance of Selected Secondary Schools in Kelantan Darulnaim; International Journal of Independent Research and Studies Vol. 1, No.2 (April, 2012) 57-67

24. Noonan & Hellsten, March 12, 2013 ; TOWARD INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP: PRINCIPALS’ PERCEPTIONS OF LARGE-SCALE ASSESSMENT IN SCHOOLS; Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, Issue #140, March 12, 2013.

25. Areport by AIR, January 2012 ; Quality School LEADERSHIP ; Measuring Principal Performance How Rigorous Are Commonly Used Principal Performance Assessment Instruments?

26. Edgerson, Kritsonis, NUMBER 1, 2006; Analysis of the Influence of Principal –Teacher Relationships on Student Academic Achievement:A National Focus, NATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PUBLISHING AND MENTORING DOCTORAL STUDENT RESEARCH VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1, 2006

27. Leithwood, Louis, Anderson and wahlstroml copyright 2004; earning from Leadership Project; How leadership influences student learning

28. Coyote, January 2011; PRINCIPAL ATTITUDES TOWARD PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN SOUTH DAKOTA SECONDARY SCHOOLS

29. The Wallace Foundation, January 2012; The SCHOOL PRINCIPAL AS LEADER: Guiding Schools to Better Teaching and Learning.

30. Williams, Cameron & Davis, 2009; principal evaluation system