peer evaluation: IT'S NOT JUST FOR TEACHERS.

In Chula Vista, educators replaced an evaluation system that had little relevance to principals' leadership performance with peer group evaluations.

In the fall of 1993, as the new superintendent of the Chula Vista Elementary School District, I conducted an individual assessment of the organization with each of the district's 32 principals. Discussions on strengths and areas needing change immediately surfaced the issue of the principals' evaluation process as a priority concern.

The principals described their process as a "dog-and-pony show" with little or no relevance to their leadership performance and impact on student achievement. Principals believed they were jumping through hoops just to please central office administrators. Some were convinced that the criteria for judging effectiveness included the length and weight of documents provided. A few principals candidly admitted that they fabricated observation data for submission to their supervisors. Recording activities and keeping track of participation in events took on its own special value, since little attempt was made to connect these activities to outcomes.

During the 1993-1994 school year, a principal task force was established to review the literature and to research evaluation models. At the rime, we found a few interesting evaluation processes and instruments (Louisville, Ky.; Seattle and Vancouver, Wash.) and identified various components to incorporate into our own.

We agreed that the primary purpose of an evaluation process is to promote professional growth and personal development. In order to create a meaningful process, the importance of ongoing and open communication was emphasized.

In addition, we agreed that multiple assessments and longitudinal data on performance indicators needed to apply to adults as well as students. It should be noted that regular surveys of the community, parents, staff and students are conducted, feedback is taken seriously and is incorporated into improvement actions. Longitudinal student achievement data on multiple assessments as well as attendance rates and other school profile data are also reviewed with stakeholders in the feedback process. This shifts the focus by looking at necessary leadership action and the impact on students, in contrast to simply recording activities for compliance purposes.

Initial procedures

Beginning with the 1994-1995 school year, all principals reported directly to the superintendent. Peer groups consisting of four to seven members were formed through a process of self-selection. An expectation was set for monthly peer meetings throughout the school year. Each principal had a fall conference with the superintendent, followed by group goal-setting sessions. The peer group selected a common focus based on predetermined criterion. (Each peer group used performance indicators in professional growth, school improvement, evaluation of school personnel, management, communication and community relations.)

Peer groups identified individuals to be evaluated on a two-year rotation cycle, with the exception of new principals, who were evaluated annually for a three-year probation period.

The peer groups used an array of approaches to observe, learn and provide support and feedback to each other. These included classroom observations, analysis of student work, formal interviews with key staff and parent leaders as well as problem-solving and idea exchanges on best practices. Peer sessions also provide a measure of catharsis.

Throughout the process, confidentiality on individual issues or concerns is maintained between the principal and superintendent, unless the principal chooses to divulge information to his/her peers. Peer group evaluations do not supercede the superintendent's responsibility to hold individuals accountable for their leadership performance and to implement plans for assistance or improvement when necessary.

At the end of the first year, group conferences with the superintendent addressed these two questions: What did we learn? What difference has it made (if any) on my ability as a leader to improve student learning?

Second year assessment

In the fall of 1996, principals assessed the peer group evaluation process. Among the strengths, they reported:

* established meaningful evaluation through learning and cooperative efforts;

* built trust through frequent, non-threatening, candid communication with a core group;

* brainstormed solutions to common and unusual problems;

* gained diverse perspectives and varied expertise;

* found support and assistance for dealing with difficult issues;

* valued interactions with other principals because they led to new professional relationships and friendships.

They also pointed to these weaknesses:

* reluctance to offer criticism for fear of hurting feelings or alienating peers;

* lack of consistency where expectations were not clearly defined;

* lack of adequate time to visit and process information.

Several recommendations to improve the peer review process were offered. These included the need to clearly articulate expectations among the group members, to designate one meeting a month for principal peer groups, and to share procedures among groups.

Evolving process

Although some strong relationships emerged within groups, trust-building and transfer to the group at large have been minimal. Intergroup dynamics continue to fluctuate as a result of insecurities, professional rivalry, intolerance and resistance to changing the status quo. Not all peer groups took the opportunity to stretch their own thinking. Issues of accountability and a continuous focus on data-driven, student-based decision making must be addressed and reinforced.

The peer evaluation process has provided a structure for ongoing principal support, allowing the superintendent and assistant superintendents to focus on individuals with the greatest needs. Accurate assessment linking leadership effectiveness and student achievement remains a priority and a challenge.

During the first rive years, 13 principals were placed on plans of improvement and six transitioned to become successful principals in the district.

The ongoing questions are:

* How best to accomplish higher performance levels for our students and staff.

* How best to develop leadership capacity that assumes responsibility for student growth and development.

The following excerpt from a peer group report summarizes the value of the process:

"The group agreed that the process of peer evaluation is both positive and risk taking. Used appropriately, the group can select coaches and mentors. Members also have immediate access to the experience and advice of colleagues, with whom we can solve problems, brainstorm issues and receive constructive feedback on actions contemplated or taken. ... The process forces us to expand our professional repertoire, particularly because of the responsibility to bring something of value to the group to expand the knowledge of the group and to focus on student achievement with colleagues of like purpose. The peer evaluation process makes us responsible to and for providing competent leaders in education."

In 1998-1999, peer group membership was reorganized due to the influx of a large group of newly hired principals and the desire to disrupt comfort levels and expand relationships. Based on diversity criteria identified by principals, the superintendent re-formed peer groups. A couple of individual requests to change groups were honored.

For the next two years major efforts focused on the creation of principal performance standards. The concept aligned well with the development of student performance standards and the development of teaching professional standards. It became obvious that we need to model what we expect of others.

After a lengthy struggle embedded with tension and dissension, principals agreed to design a rubric-based performance standard aligned with ISLLC standards. A pilot implementation in 1999-2000 was immersed in controversy in our attempt to link outcomes with a bonus/merit pay scale.

Shifting the leadership culture

A representative group of principals volunteered to document the evolutionary attempts to shift the leadership culture from compliance to commitment or from an external locus of control to an internal locus of control. We need to act on what we believe serves the best interest of children and not take action to simply please others.

Significant new components of the evaluation process include the numeric value assignment to benchmarked standards, in addition to separate ratings from self-reflections, peer group and cabinet members (composed of the superintendent and assistant superintendents).

The outcomes generated a range of concerns, ranging from issues of reliability and validity to inconsistent interpretations of performance standards.

The work remains to continue to challenge our thinking, and to behave differently to make a qualitative difference for all children in our schools. We recognize our responsibility to model attributes we want for future generations, and we understand that significant change must begin with ourselves.

Next steps

At recent principals' meetings, key questions framed the discussions for next steps:

* Can the same instrument be adequately used for reflection, growth, evaluation and outcomes for merit pay?

* Can reflective questions be applied to push people out of their comfort zones in peer groups?

* Is what we are measuring what we want?

* Is the tool for performance standards creating uniformity, conformity and/or clarity?

* How do we record growth despite limited outcome measures?

* How do we challenge past practices: philosophy, values, assumptions and behaviors?

One of the greatest barriers to collaborative processes is the limited resource of time. We have established our own Leadership Learning Institute and will be spending quality time together this summer with the support of a major foundation partner. We are attempting to stretch our leadership capacity and acknowledge that it will be a continuous effort for self-improvement and life-long learning.

Finally, we are dedicated to seeking pathways to elevate our own performance, as we are equally committed to higher expectations and performance for our staff and students.

Libia S. Gil is superintendent of Chula Vista Elementary School District.