Educational Leadership Accountability Framework: A Systems-Level Diagnostic

Executive Summary

Current educational evaluation systems, exemplified by the Danielson Framework, create asymmetric accountability that places evaluation burden exclusively on teachers while exempting leadership from comparable scrutiny. This diagnostic framework addresses the systemic leadership failures that compound educational challenges through top-down compliance models without corresponding leadership accountability.

I. STRATEGIC DIAGNOSTIC QUESTIONS

A. School Board Effectiveness Assessment

Governance & Strategic Vision

What percentage of board decisions are made based on educational research versus political considerations?
How often do board members visit classrooms unannounced to observe actual teaching conditions?
What measurable outcomes demonstrate board decisions have improved student learning (not just test scores)?
How does the board measure its own effectiveness in supporting educational outcomes?
What percentage of board meeting time is spent on educational strategy versus administrative minutiae?

Community Engagement & Transparency 6. How effectively does the board communicate educational priorities to parents beyond standardized test results? 7. What mechanisms exist for meaningful teacher input on district policies before implementation? 8. How does the board measure community trust and satisfaction with district leadership? 9. What percentage of community concerns raised at board meetings receive substantive follow-up? 10. How often do board members engage with parents and teachers outside formal meeting structures?

B. Superintendent & Central Administration Evaluation

Systems Leadership & Innovation 11. What evidence demonstrates the superintendent's ability to create conditions for effective teaching? 12. How often does the superintendent teach or co-teach to maintain connection with classroom realities? 13. What measurable improvements in teacher retention and satisfaction have occurred under current leadership? 14. How effectively does central administration eliminate bureaucratic barriers to effective teaching? 15. What percentage of administrative decisions are reversed due to impracticality or negative classroom impact?

Resource Allocation & Support Systems 16. How efficiently are resources allocated to support direct student learning versus administrative overhead? 17. What systems exist to ensure administrative decisions consider classroom implementation challenges? 18. How effectively does central administration support struggling schools without punitive measures? 19. What evidence shows administrative policies reduce rather than increase teacher workload? 20. How does the administration measure its impact on creating positive school culture?

C. Principal & Building-Level Leadership Assessment

Instructional Leadership & Classroom Connection 21. What percentage of the principal's time is spent in classrooms observing and supporting teaching? 22. How often does the principal teach lessons or co-teach to maintain instructional credibility? 23. What evidence demonstrates the principal's ability to provide meaningful instructional feedback? 24. How effectively does the principal handle discipline issues without deflecting to teachers? 25. What systems has the principal created to reduce teacher administrative burden?

School Culture & Teacher Support 26. What measurable indicators show the principal creates a positive, supportive school environment? 27. How effectively does the principal shield teachers from unnecessary district mandates and initiatives? 28. What evidence demonstrates the principal's ability to recruit and retain quality teachers? 29. How does the principal measure and improve teacher job satisfaction and professional growth? 30. What systems exist for teachers to provide honest feedback about principal effectiveness without fear of retaliation?

D. Curriculum Publishers & Vendor Accountability

Educational Impact & Evidence-Based Claims 31. What independent research validates the educational effectiveness of purchased curricula and programs? 32. How often do purchased programs show sustained improvement after the initial implementation year? 33. What evidence demonstrates vendors understand actual classroom implementation challenges? 34. How many programs purchased in the last five years are still being used as originally intended? 35. What accountability measures exist for vendors when programs fail to deliver promised results?

Implementation Support & Sustainability 36. What ongoing support do vendors provide beyond initial training and sales presentations? 37. How do vendors measure and ensure their products reduce rather than increase teacher workload? 38. What evidence shows vendor programs improve student engagement rather than just compliance? 39. How effectively do vendors prepare educators for realistic implementation challenges? 40. What refund or accountability mechanisms exist when vendor promises are not fulfilled?

II. SYSTEMS-LEVEL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

A. Leadership Effectiveness Metrics

Student-Centered Outcomes

Student engagement levels (measured through surveys and behavioral indicators)
Reduction in chronic absenteeism and school avoidance behaviors
Improvement in student voice and agency within learning environments
Decrease in disciplinary incidents requiring external intervention
Evidence of students taking intellectual risks and showing curiosity

Teacher Professional Environment

Teacher retention rates and exit interview analysis
Teacher job satisfaction and professional growth indicators
Reduction in teacher stress-related absences and turnover
Evidence of teacher innovation and professional risk-taking
Quality of teacher collaboration and professional learning communities

Community Trust & Engagement

Parent satisfaction with communication and transparency
Community member engagement in school activities and governance
Local business and organization partnerships with schools
Media coverage reflecting community confidence in school leadership
Evidence of community understanding of educational challenges and solutions

B. Systemic Health Indicators

Organizational Efficiency

Ratio of administrative costs to direct educational spending
Time teachers spend on administrative tasks versus instruction
Speed and effectiveness of problem resolution from classroom to leadership
Frequency of policy reversals due to implementation problems
Evidence of learning from failed initiatives rather than blame assignment

Innovation & Adaptation

Evidence of local solution development rather than purchased program dependence
Demonstration of leadership learning from other successful educational systems
Ability to adapt quickly to changing educational needs without major disruption
Evidence of grassroots innovation being supported rather than mandated from above
Demonstration of long-term strategic thinking versus reactive crisis management

III. ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK DESIGN

A. 360-Degree Leadership Evaluation

Multi-Stakeholder Feedback Systems

Anonymous teacher evaluation of administrators (parallel to teacher evaluation by administrators)
Student voice in leadership effectiveness (age-appropriate surveys and feedback mechanisms)
Parent assessment of administrative responsiveness and educational leadership
Community member evaluation of board and district effectiveness
Peer review among administrative leaders across districts

Performance-Based Accountability

Leadership effectiveness tied to teacher retention and satisfaction metrics
Administrative advancement contingent on demonstrated classroom understanding
Board member effectiveness measured through educational outcome improvements
Vendor contract renewals based on sustained program effectiveness data
Central administration evaluation tied to reduced teacher administrative burden

B. Systemic Reform Implementation

Phase 1: Diagnostic Assessment (Months 1-6)

Comprehensive evaluation of current leadership effectiveness using framework questions
Anonymous stakeholder surveys across all constituency groups
Analysis of decision-making processes and their educational impact
Assessment of resource allocation patterns and their classroom effects
Documentation of current accountability gaps and asymmetries

Phase 2: Framework Implementation (Months 7-18)

Development of leadership evaluation tools parallel to teacher evaluation systems
Training for multi-stakeholder feedback processes
Implementation of transparent reporting systems for leadership effectiveness
Creation of professional development requirements for administrators based on evaluation results
Establishment of vendor accountability contracts with performance guarantees

Phase 3: Continuous Improvement (Ongoing)

Regular review and refinement of leadership accountability measures
Integration of stakeholder feedback into administrative professional development
Public reporting of leadership effectiveness metrics alongside student outcome data
Continuous alignment of administrative actions with stated educational priorities
Evidence-based decision making requirements for all leadership levels

IV. EXPECTED OUTCOMES

A. Immediate Improvements (Year 1)

Increased transparency in leadership decision-making processes
Enhanced teacher voice in educational policy development
Improved alignment between administrative actions and classroom needs
Reduced teacher turnover due to improved administrative support
More realistic and sustainable educational initiative implementation

B. Medium-Term Transformation (Years 2-3)

Significantly improved school culture and teacher job satisfaction
Enhanced community trust and engagement with public education
More effective resource allocation prioritizing direct student support
Reduced reliance on external vendors and increased local solution development
Improved student engagement and reduced avoidance behaviors

C. Long-Term Systemic Change (Years 4-5)

Sustainable educational improvement based on supportive leadership rather than punitive compliance
Restoration of teaching as an attractive and respected profession
Community confidence in public education reducing flight to alternatives
Evidence-based decision making becoming standard practice at all levels
Educational leadership viewed as a professional calling requiring demonstrated classroom credibility

V. IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Pilot Program Development

Recommend beginning with 3-5 volunteer districts willing to implement comprehensive leadership accountability alongside existing teacher evaluation systems. Document outcomes and refine processes before broader implementation.

B. Legislative and Policy Considerations

Advocate for state-level policy requiring leadership evaluation systems that mirror the rigor and consequences of teacher evaluation systems. Include provisions for community input and transparent reporting.

C. Professional Development Infrastructure

Develop administrator preparation programs that require significant classroom teaching experience and ongoing classroom engagement as prerequisites for advancement.

D. Community Engagement Strategy

Create mechanisms for ongoing community education about educational challenges and solutions, moving beyond test score reporting to comprehensive understanding of educational effectiveness.

This framework represents a fundamental shift from top-down compliance to comprehensive accountability that recognizes education as a complex system requiring effective leadership at all levels.

Great, I’ll develop a Danielson-style evaluation framework specifically designed to assess principals, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and school boards using the systemic accountability model you've outlined. I’ll organize it around professional domains with clear performance indicators aligned to your diagnostic and accountability measures. I’ll let you know once the framework is ready for review.

Leadership Accountability Framework (Systemic Diagnostic Model)

This framework adapts the Danielson-style domains to evaluate principals, central office leaders, and school boards, grounded in a systems-level accountability approach. Effective leaders set clear strategic goals and use data and stakeholder input in decision-making. They foster a culture of transparency and trust through open communication and community engagement. Evaluation draws on multiple measures (including 360° stakeholder feedback and systemic metrics) to gauge impact. Domains align with key diagnostic questions about vision clarity, resource alignment, instructional quality, governance, and stakeholder trust.

Domain 1: Vision, Goals & Strategic Planning

Leaders (at school or district level) articulate a clear vision, mission, and goals, aligning policies and resources to achieve them. They use comprehensive data to inform planning and monitor progress toward equity-based outcomes. The board ensures district vision and goals are pursued across the system.

Component 1A: Strategic Vision and Goal-Setting. Leaders establish ambitious, equity-focused goals and a mission-driven roadmap.
- Unsatisfactory:
  - Principal: Lacks a clear vision or goals for the school; planning is reactive.
  - District Leadership: No cohesive district vision or goals; central office actions appear uncoordinated.
  - School Board: Has not defined or communicated clear district priorities; decisions seem ad hoc.
- Basic:
  - Principal: Articulates general goals (e.g. “improve test scores”) but with limited detail or alignment to needs.
  - District: Provides broad strategic objectives but insufficient guidance or follow-through.
  - Board: Endorses district vision in broad terms but offers minimal oversight of its implementation.
- Proficient:
  - Principal: Develops a coherent school vision and strategic goals; regularly reviews progress with staff.
  - District: Sets clear district-wide goals; monitors alignment of school plans with those goals.
  - Board: Reviews and ratifies district vision/goals; holds superintendent accountable for progress.
- Distinguished:
  - Principal: Leads collaborative visioning with staff and community, deeply embedding goals in school culture.
  - District: Cultivates shared commitment to goals across all schools; adjusts strategy based on data.
  - Board: Champions the vision publicly, ensures all policies and budgets drive the strategic plan, and refines goals based on outcomes.
Component 1B: Data-Informed Planning. Leaders systematically collect and analyze multiple data sources (student performance, attendance, climate, etc.) to drive decisions.
- Unsatisfactory:
  - Principal: Rarely uses data; decisions lack evidence of impact.
  - District: Makes resource or program decisions without consulting data; ignores trends.
  - Board: Reviews few metrics on student learning or operations; overlooks data in discussions.
- Basic:
  - Principal: Uses some data (e.g. test scores) to identify issues, but analysis is superficial.
  - District: Collects basic district data but does not integrate findings into planning.
  - Board: Receives periodic reports on key indicators but provides little guidance on implications.
- Proficient:
  - Principal: Regularly analyzes multiple indicators (academic, behavior, etc.) to inform instruction and school improvement.
  - District: Monitors system-level KPIs and disaggregated data; uses results to adjust programs and resource allocation.
  - Board: Requests and examines outcome data (achievement gaps, graduation rates); uses data in policy and budget discussions.
- Distinguished:
  - Principal: Builds a school-wide culture of inquiry; staff collaboratively use data to set targets and refine teaching.
  - District: Employs a data dashboard for ongoing monitoring; district leaders share data openly to foster collective problem-solving.
  - Board: Embeds data review into governance (e.g. regular KPI updates); drives strategic adjustments when data trends stall or decline.

Domain 2: Culture, Climate & Relationships

Leaders create safe, equitable, and inclusive environments. They build positive school or district culture, trusting relationships, and active engagement with families and community. The board promotes a district culture of accountability and trust.

Component 2A: Supportive Climate and Equity. Leaders ensure a respectful, safe, and nurturing environment for all students and staff.
- Unsatisfactory:
  - Principal: School climate is negative or unsafe; issues like bullying or absenteeism are unaddressed.
  - District: Lacks coherent plans for improving school climate; central office disconnected from culture issues.
  - Board: Ignores evidence of inequity or dissatisfaction; does not seek input on culture from stakeholders.
- Basic:
  - Principal: Meets basic safety requirements; responses to discipline or equity issues are inconsistent.
  - District: Provides general statements about equity but minimal support for school climates.
  - Board: Passively approves policies on safety or inclusion; rarely engages with district climate reports.
- Proficient:
  - Principal: Fosters a positive school climate (via PBIS, restorative practices); monitors equity of outcomes across groups.
  - District: Offers professional development on inclusive practices; central office analyzes climate survey data and supports schools.
  - Board: Reviews equity reports (discipline, achievement gaps); asks critical questions about district culture and resource fairness.
- Distinguished:
  - Principal: Creates a deeply inclusive culture that celebrates diversity; proactively addresses inequities and student well-being.
  - District: Leads districtwide equity initiatives; allocates resources (e.g. counselors, programs) to address identified gaps.
  - Board: Models equity-minded leadership; actively engages with underrepresented community groups and ensures system fairness.
Component 2B: Stakeholder Engagement & Trust. Leaders engage families, teachers, and community in meaningful dialogue; they operate with transparency and build trust.
- Unsatisfactory:
  - Principal: Communicates little with parents/community; makes decisions unilaterally without input.
  - District: Holds closed-door decision processes; minimal outreach to schools or public.
  - Board: Limits public participation; fails to publish meeting materials or solicit feedback.
- Basic:
  - Principal: Sends routine updates (newsletters, parent-teacher nights) but with little two-way communication.
  - District: Provides a basic website and surveys, but engagement is sporadic.
  - Board: Holds meetings open to public but rarely encourages dialogue; posts minutes irregularly.
- Proficient:
  - Principal: Actively seeks parent and teacher input (committees, surveys); implements some community partnerships.
  - District: Maintains transparent processes (regular reporting, town halls); central office collaborates with feeder communities.
  - Board: Ensures meeting agendas/minutes are public, invites stakeholder testimony, and follows up on community concerns.
- Distinguished:
  - Principal: Empowers families and community as partners (e.g. volunteering, advisory councils); builds strong trust and shared ownership.
  - District: Engages diverse stakeholders in strategic planning; co-constructs solutions with community input.
  - Board: Fosters a culture of openness and accountability—setting clear expectations for district leaders and explaining decisions clearly to build public confidence.

Domain 3: Instructional Leadership & Learning

Leaders (principal or district) drive high-quality instruction and curriculum coherence. They support teachers’ professional growth and remain connected to classroom realities. The board ensures policies and resources prioritize student learning.

Component 3A: Curriculum and Assessment Alignment. Leaders implement rigorous, standards-aligned curricula and use assessments to support learning.
- Unsatisfactory:
  - Principal: School curriculum is inconsistent; little attention to standards or learner needs.
  - District: Lacks clear curriculum guidelines; schools left to adopt piecemeal programs.
  - Board: Approves textbooks/policies without reviewing curricular coherence or equity implications.
- Basic:
  - Principal: Uses district-approved curriculum but makes limited adaptations; assessments cover standards unevenly.
  - District: Provides baseline curriculum and standardized tests but offers minimal guidance on differentiation.
  - Board: Receives district curriculum reports but does not seek to understand gaps or mismatches.
- Proficient:
  - Principal: Ensures instruction is aligned to state standards; regularly reviews assessment data to adjust teaching.
  - District: Develops coherent K–12 curriculum maps; supports schools with common assessments and instructional resources.
  - Board: Holds the superintendent accountable for curriculum quality; supports investments in curriculum development and evaluation.
- Distinguished:
  - Principal: Cultivates innovative, culturally responsive curricula; leaders and teachers collaborate to tailor learning to student needs.
  - District: Leverages expertise (e.g. assistant superintendents) to pilot and scale best-practice programs; continuously refines curricula system-wide.
  - Board: Advances a vision of high expectations for all students; connects district curriculum priorities to long-term student achievement goals.
Component 3B: Teaching Quality and Professional Growth. Leaders provide robust professional development and support for teachers, linking practice to student results.
- Unsatisfactory:
  - Principal: Offers little or no professional development; ignores teacher performance issues.
  - District: Limited training for staff; coaching and curriculum support are absent.
  - Board: Does not prioritize teacher quality in staffing or budget discussions.
- Basic:
  - Principal: Arranges occasional workshops; handles teacher challenges reactively.
  - District: Hosts basic PD sessions; principal coaching or evaluation support is inconsistent.
  - Board: Reviews district efforts (e.g. “we fund PD”) but lacks focus on impact.
- Proficient:
  - Principal: Implements targeted PD based on classroom needs; conducts regular teacher evaluations with feedback.
  - District: Provides structured coaching/mentoring for teachers and leaders; aligns PD to strategic goals.
  - Board: Evaluates the effectiveness of district professional development; requires evidence of improved instruction from spending decisions.
- Distinguished:
  - Principal: Builds a professional learning community; actively monitors classroom practice (see 3C) and uses data to individualize teacher growth.
  - District: Pioneers innovative PD models (e.g. peer coaching, site-based learning teams); invests in staff leadership development.
  - Board: Champions teacher and leader development; incentivizes excellence and rewards creativity in instruction.
Component 3C: Classroom Connection and Observation. Leaders stay deeply connected to instruction through regular classroom visits, coaching conversations, and feedback loops.
- Unsatisfactory:
  - Principal: Rarely visits classrooms or observes instruction; unaware of daily teaching challenges.
  - District: Central staff seldom visit schools; relies only on reports for insight.
  - Board: Views instruction only at surface (e.g. brief tours); does not inquire about classroom practices.
- Basic:
  - Principal: Walkthroughs are irregular; feedback is generic.
  - District: Coordinates occasional classroom observation schedules; limited follow-up with principals.
  - Board: Occasionally attends school events/classroom visits but as observers, not in a learning role.
- Proficient:
  - Principal: Frequently conducts learning walks with teachers; provides timely, specific feedback for improvement.
  - District: Deploys instructional coaches or content specialists to support schools; collects principal walkthrough data.
  - Board: Encourages teacher-driven presentation of student work at board meetings; asks substantive questions about pedagogy.
- Distinguished:
  - Principal: Leads collegial classroom visits, modeling best practices and eliciting peer feedback; uses insights to refine teaching culture.
  - District: Integrates data from classroom observations into district strategy; uses findings to strengthen instruction across schools.
  - Board: Actively engages in educational learning (e.g. board study tours) to understand instruction; ensures policies enable innovation in teaching.

Domain 4: Operations, Governance & Accountability

Leaders manage resources, policies, and accountability systems to support learning. They foster transparency and continuous improvement. Evaluation relies on systemic impact metrics and multi-stakeholder feedback.

Component 4A: Resource Stewardship. Leaders strategically allocate financial, human, and material resources to highest priorities (equitable programs, staffing, facilities).
- Unsatisfactory:
  - Principal: Mismanages budget or scheduling; staffing inequities persist unnoticed.
  - District: Fails to align budget with goals; central overhead dominates at expense of instruction.
  - Board: Approves budgets without scrutiny; does not question resource trade-offs or equity in funding.
- Basic:
  - Principal: Meets basic budget requirements; uses funds as directed but without strategic innovation.
  - District: Maintains compliance with laws; some inefficiencies in resource use remain.
  - Board: Approves recommended budgets; occasionally asks clarifying questions about spending.
- Proficient:
  - Principal: Allocates school funds to support achievement gaps; adjusts staffing/resource levels based on need.
  - District: Implements data-driven budgeting (e.g. weighted funding); regularly reviews fiscal impact on student learning.
  - Board: Ensures budget and resources align with strategic goals; monitors fiscal health and policy compliance.
- Distinguished:
  - Principal: Secures additional resources through grants/partnerships; demonstrates innovative cost-saving practices benefiting students.
  - District: Optimizes resource allocation to close opportunity gaps; reallocates funds mid-year as data indicate changes.
  - Board: Leads in securing community funding support; sets multi-year financial planning to sustain strategic initiatives.
Component 4B: Policy, Compliance and Governance. Leaders uphold and advance clear policies, legal compliance, and ethical standards.
- Unsatisfactory:
  - Principal: Neglects mandatory regulations or ethical issues; fails to communicate policy changes.
  - District: Lapses in special education, Title I, or other compliance areas; lack of accountability.
  - Board: Ignores governance best practices; does not maintain a clear code of conduct or self-evaluation.
- Basic:
  - Principal: Follows required regulations but with limited insight or proactivity.
  - District: Meets reporting obligations; some rules are outdated or inconsistently enforced.
  - Board: Provides oversight of policy updates; relies heavily on legal counsel without proactive governance review.
- Proficient:
  - Principal: Keeps school policies current; consistently applies discipline and equity policies.
  - District: Regularly reviews and updates district policy manual; trains staff on compliance issues.
  - Board: Operates under a handbook of governance; conducts periodic self-assessment of board practices.
- Distinguished:
  - Principal: Leads policy innovation (e.g. restorative justice, equity initiatives); mentors other schools on implementation.
  - District: Proactively aligns policies with equity and excellence goals; rigorously audits compliance and remediates promptly.
  - Board: Models high standards (e.g. transparency, ethical fundraising); continuously refines governance (e.g. committee structures) to improve effectiveness.
Component 4C: Transparency and Community Accountability. Leaders communicate openly about performance and invite stakeholder feedback to build trust.
- Unsatisfactory:
  - Principal: Provides minimal data to community; avoids difficult conversations about school issues.
  - District: Distributes reports only when required; engagement with public is superficial.
  - Board: Lacks a public accountability process; community feels uninformed.
- Basic:
  - Principal: Shares school performance data at PTA meetings; occasional newsletters.
  - District: Publishes basic performance reports (e.g. annual report card).
  - Board: Holds an annual report to the public; some transparency but inconsistent.
- Proficient:
  - Principal: Regularly holds forums to discuss progress; uses clear, jargon-free language in communications.
  - District: Engages in two-way communication (surveys, forums); responds to community inquiries proactively.
  - Board: Actively solicits input (via committees, surveys); communicates outcomes of decisions and uses feedback to refine policy.
- Distinguished:
  - Principal: Cultivates a school culture of candor; openly shares challenges and successes with all stakeholders.
  - District: Maintains a “culture of accountability”—sharing data openly and tracking continuous improvement.
  - Board: Ensures public trust by making board processes highly transparent; holds itself and district leaders clearly answerable for student outcomes.
Component 4D: Systemic Impact and Continuous Improvement. Leaders use outcome metrics and feedback to foster ongoing improvement.
- Unsatisfactory:
  - Principal: Sets no targets; accepts status quo even if student outcomes stagnate.
  - District: Lacks process to evaluate initiatives; misses opportunities to learn from data.
  - Board: Passively receives performance reports without insisting on improvement actions.
- Basic:
  - Principal: Monitors a few indicators (e.g. test scores) but makes limited adjustments.
  - District: Reviews district-wide outcomes at mid-year, though often too late to intervene.
  - Board: Discusses outcome data annually but does not tie results to specific board goals.
- Proficient:
  - Principal: Establishes measurable targets (attendance, achievement, etc.) and regularly reviews progress with staff.
  - District: Implements an accountability cycle (goal-setting, monitoring, adjusting) informed by key performance indicators.
  - Board: Uses student achievement and system metrics to evaluate superintendent and holds strategic planning sessions based on results.
- Distinguished:
  - Principal: Cultivates continuous improvement (e.g. Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles); iteratively refines school strategies based on evidence and feedback.
  - District: Systematizes improvement (e.g. turnaround protocols, rapid-cycle evaluation); leverages 360° feedback and data to sharpen district initiatives.
  - Board: Holds itself and district accountable through data-driven benchmarks; ensures each decision maps back to student learning gains and system-level equity.

Evaluation Note: In practice, each leader’s performance would be assessed at these levels using multiple measures: e.g. school/district performance data, leadership impact metrics, surveys and focus groups (360° feedback from teachers, staff, students, and community), and evidence of culture/climate (surveys, observations). This multi-faceted approach enforces a continuous accountability loop and aligns with the systemic diagnostic principles of clarity, transparency, and measurable impact.

Sources: This framework draws on best practices in educational leadership evaluation and aligns with systems-level accountability diagnostics. Each domain and component is grounded in research-based indicators (e.g. vision and data use, stakeholder trust, and classroom-connected leadership). The rubric uses the Danielson four-tier performance levels (Unsatisfactory–Distinguished) and adapts them for principals, superintendents/assistant superintendents, and school boards as specified.

Reading Sage: Your Trusted Reading Community

Sunday, June 22, 2025