Principal Evaluation and Observation:
Missouri
Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policy
Note
The data and analysis on this page is from 2019. View and download the most recent policy data and analysis on Principal Evaluation and Observation in Missouri from the State of the States 2022: Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies report.
Analysis of Missouri's policies
Evaluation frequency: Missouri does not require annual evaluations for principals. The state requires evaluations to be "ongoing and of sufficient specificity and frequency to provide for demonstrated standards of competency and academic ability."
Observation/site visit requirements: Missouri does not articulate any requirements regarding the number of times a principal is observed.
Evaluator training: Missouri state policy requires evaluator training; however, the state does not require evaluator certification or a process that would ensure inter-rater reliability.
Recommendations for Missouri
Require annual formal evaluations for all principals.
All principals in Missouri should be evaluated annually. Rather than treated as mere formalities, these principal evaluations should serve as important tools for rewarding good principals, helping average principals improve, and holding weak principals accountable for poor performance.
Require multiple observations/site visits for all principals.
To ensure that annual evaluations are based on adequate information, Missouri should require multiple observations/site visits for all principals.
Require all principal evaluators to be both trained and certified.
All principal evaluators in Missouri should be trained and certified to
conduct principal evaluations on systems that include objective measures.
Ensuring that all evaluators are appropriately trained and certified in
conducting principal evaluations will help ensure that all evaluators
are able to provide principals with fair and valid evaluations.
State response to our analysis
Missouri recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.
Updated: June 2019
-
Missouri
Select another topic
Teacher Preparation
- Program Entry
- Teacher Shortages and Surpluses
- Program Performance Measures
- Program Reporting Requirements
- Student Teaching/Clinical Practice
Elementary Teacher Preparation
Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Middle School Content Knowledge
- Middle School Licensure Requirements
- Secondary Content Knowledge
- Secondary Licensure Requirements
Special Education Teacher Preparation
Alternate Routes
Teacher Diversity
Hiring
Teacher and Principal Evaluation
Teacher Compensation
Early Childhood Preparation
Retaining Effective Teachers
How we graded
7H: Principal Evaluation and Observation
- Annual Evaluations: The state should require that all principals be evaluated annually.
- Observations: The state should require that all principals receive multiple observations over the course of the school year.
- Certified Evaluators: The state should require that all principal evaluators be trained and certified.
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:
- One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it requires that all principals are evaluated annually.
One-half of the total goal score is earned based on the following:
- One-half credit: The state will earn the full one-half of a point if it requires that all principals receive multiple observations annually.
- One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it requires all principals to be annually observed but does not require multiple observations.
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:
- One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point it requires principal evaluators to be trained and certified.
Research rationale
Research demonstrates that there is a clear link between school leadership and school outcomes.[1] Principals foster school improvement by shaping school goals, policies and practices, and social and organizational structures.[2] Principals vary significantly in their effectiveness, and research suggests that high-quality principals positively affect student achievement, in-school discipline, parents' perceptions of schools, and school climates.[3] Further, principals affect teacher retention and recruitment;[4] effective principals are more adept at retaining effective teachers and removing ineffective teachers.[5] The time principals spend on organizational management, instructional programming, and teacher evaluation is critically important for positive effects on teachers and students.[6] Because principals are an essential component of creating successful schools, their effectiveness should be regularly evaluated by trained evaluators on systems that include objective measures. Such systems will help to ensure that all principals receive the feedback and support necessary to improve their practice and, ultimately, student and school outcomes.
[1] Clifford, M., Hansen, U. J., & Wraight, S. (2014). Practical guide to designing comprehensive principal evaluation systems: A tool to assist in the development of principal evaluation systems. Center on Great Teachers and Leaders.; Rice, J. K. (2010). Principal effectiveness and leadership in an era of accountability (Brief 8). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.; Glasman, N. S., & Heck, R. H. (1992). The changing leadership role of the principal: Implications for principal assessment. Peabody Journal of Education, 68(1), 5-24.
[2] Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
[3] Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2012). Estimating the effect of leaders on public sector productivity: The case of school principals (No. w17803). National Bureau of Economic Research.; Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L. Anderson, S. E., Michlin, M., & Mascall, B. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement/University of Minnesota and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto, 42, 50.; Clark, D., Martorell, P., & Rockoff, J. (2009). School principals and school performance (No. w17803). National Bureau of Economic Research.; Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: A review of research for the Learning from Leadership Project. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
[4] Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Education Research Journal, 48(2), 303-333; Kimball, S. (2011). Strategic talent management for principals. Strategic management of human capital in education: Improving instructional practice and student learning in schools (pp. 133-152). New York, NY: Routledge Publishing; Rice, J. K. (2010). Principal effectiveness and leadership in an era of accountability (Brief 8). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.; Clark, D., Martorell, P., & Rockoff, J. (2009). School principals and school performance (No. w17803). National Bureau of Economic Research.
[5] Beteille, T., Kalogrides, D., Loeb, S. (2009). Effective schools: Managing the recruitment, development, and retention of high-quality teachers (Working Paper 37). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
[6] Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091-1123.; Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal's time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491-523.; Catano, N., & Stronge, J. H. (2007). What do we expect of school principals? Congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(4), 379-399.