Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), University of Dayton, 2023, Educational Leadership

The Ohio Principal Evaluation System 2.0 (OPES 2.0) serves as the primary tool for assessing principal effectiveness in Ohio. This research explores Ohio principals' experiences with OPES 2.0 and how OPES 2.0 influences professional growth. It also identifies factors that either support or hinder successful evaluation outcomes. Using a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach, the study analyzed principals' perceptions of OPES 2.0, the competency of evaluators, impact on professional habits and development, and the challenges faced in OPES 2.0 implementation. The findings reveal that principals have ambivalent views about OPES 2.0. In its inaugural year of mandated use, strong negative sentiments were prevalent. Furthermore, inconsistent implementation across districts—often missing key evaluation components—led to varied experiences for principals, obstructing their ability to leverage evaluation results for growth. While principals believed they understood the system and trusted their evaluators' capabilities, they were unsure about the flexibility permitted in implementing OPES 2.0. Notably, principals with less than five years of experience found OPES 2.0 less beneficial for their growth compared to their more experienced counterparts. Principals were evenly divided on whether OPES 2.0 positively affected their professional practices and development. The study underscores the need for enhancements at all principal evaluation stages—planning, monitoring, assessment, and appraisal—and across all structural levels, from state to individual principal. These findings offer a foundation for state agencies and school districts to gauge the effectiveness and perceived value of the new state principal evaluation model. Crucially, the study highlights that certain aspects of OPES 2.0 implementation in 2022-2023 impeded its main objectives to foster professional growth in principals and improve school outcomes.

Committee: Thomas Lasley (Committee Chair); Meredith Wronowski (Committee Member); Susan Brown (Committee Member); Larry Smith (Committee Member); David Dolph (Committee Member) Subjects: Education; Education Policy; Educational Leadership; School Administration

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2015, EDU Policy and Leadership

Extending leadership opportunities to teachers may be a way to expand leadership capacity in schools. This study focused on the intersection of two discrete bodies of literature, school structure and teacher leadership, and whether there is a correlation between enabling structure and teacher leadership. The study also examined differences in teachers' perceptions of teacher leadership and enabling school structure by school grade level and formal staff position. This study employed mixed methods to examine teacher leadership in 23 Midwestern public school districts. Teachers, formal teacher leaders such as instructional coaches, nonteaching staff such as counselors, and administrators participated in the study. A teacher survey was administered (N = 405), which included items from existing teacher leadership and enabling school structure scales. Results from statistical analysis of teachers' survey responses were used to select participants for follow-up observations and interviews (n = 7) to further examine the relationship between teacher leadership and school structure. Findings show a moderate correlation between enabling school structure and the extent of teacher leadership as well as differences in responses based on participants' school level and position or role. In addition, three overarching themes characterized interview responses: teachers' lack of time, the importance of the role of the principal, and the hierarchical structure of the schools and districts.

Committee: Anika Anthony Ph. D (Advisor); Belinda Gimbert Ph. D. (Committee Member); Scott Sweetland Ph. D. (Committee Member) Subjects: Education; Education Policy; Educational Leadership