Skip Navigation
archived information
Skip Navigation

Back to Ask A REL Archived Responses

REL Midwest Ask A REL Response


October 2019


What research is available on principal evaluation systems?


Following an established Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Midwest protocol, we conducted a search for research reports, descriptive studies and policy overviews on the use of principal evaluation systems. In addition, we focused on identifying resources related to leadership for equity. For details on the databases and sources, keywords, and selection criteria used to create this response, please see the Methods section at the end of this memo.

Below, we share a sampling of the publicly accessible resources on this topic. References are listed in alphabetical order, not necessarily in order of relevance. The search conducted is not comprehensive; other relevant references and resources may exist. For each reference, we provide an abstract, excerpt, or summary written by the study’s author or publisher. We have not evaluated the quality of these references, but provide them for your information only.

Research References

Chiang, H., McCullough, M., Lipscomb, S., & Gill, B. (2016). Can student test scores provide useful measures of school principals’ performance? (NCEE 2016-002). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from

From the ERIC abstract: “States and districts need ways of measuring principal performance that correctly identify effective principals. Unfortunately, existing research offers little guidance to policymakers on which types of performance measures provide valid information about principals’ contributions to student achievement. States have therefore had to develop principal performance measures without clear evidence that these measures accurately identify effective principals. This study examined four alternative measures of principal performance. ‘Average achievement’ used only information about students’ end-of-year achievement without taking into account the students’ past achievement. In contrast, ‘school value-added’ accounted for students’ own past achievement by measuring their growth—specifically, the extent to which student achievement growth at a school differed from average growth statewide for students with similar prior achievement and background characteristics. Two other measures in this study took into account the schools’ prior performance to avoid rewarding or penalizing principals simply for being assigned to schools that had better or worse characteristics. ‘Adjusted average achievement’ and ‘adjusted school value-added’ credited principals if their schools’ average achievement and value-added, respectively, exceeded predictions for the average principal, given the schools’ past performance on those same measures. To assess each measure’s predictive validity, the study conducted two sets of analyses using student and principal data from 2007/08-2013/14 in the entire state of Pennsylvania. First, the study assessed the extent to which ratings from each measure are stable—that is, remain consistent over time—by examining the association between principals’ ratings from earlier and later years. Stability was important to measure because only stable parts of a rating have the potential to contain information about principals’ future performance; unstable parts reflect only transient aspects of their performance. Second, the study examined the relationship between the stable part of a principal’s rating and his or her contributions to student achievement in future years. To do so, the study carried out a benchmark approach to obtain the most rigorous available measure of principals’ contributions—but one that was available for only a subset of principals. For the benchmark approach, the study team calculated the change in student achievement at a school when one principal replaced another to determine how the successor’s contribution differed from that of the predecessor. The study then compared the stable parts of the ratings from each of the four measures to results from the benchmark approach in a future year. Using the results of both analyses, the study summarized each measure’s predictive validity by simulating its accuracy for predicting principals’ contributions to student achievement in the following year. A measure could have high predictive validity only if it was highly stable between consecutive years (from the first analysis) and its stable part was strongly related to principals’ contributions to student achievement (from the second analysis). The study assessed the predictive validity of single-year ratings and ratings averaged across three years. The study had the following key findings: (1) The two performance measures in this study that did not account for students’ past achievement—average achievement and adjusted average achievement—provided no information for predicting principals’ contributions to student achievement in the following year; (2) The two performance measures in this study that accounted for students’ past achievement—school value-added and adjusted school value-added—provided, at most, a small amount of information for predicting principals’ contributions to student achievement in the following year; and (3) Averaging performance measures across multiple recent years did not improve their accuracy for predicting principals’ contributions to student achievement in the following year.”

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. Washington, DC: Center on Great Teachers and Leaders, American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from

From the ERIC abstract: “Across the country, states and districts are designing principal evaluation systems as a means of improving leadership, learning, and school performance. Principal evaluation systems hold potential for supporting leaders’ learning and sense of accountability for instructional excellence and student performance. Principal evaluation also is an important component of state and district systems of leadership support efforts, especially when newly designed evaluation systems work in conjunction with principal certification, hiring, and professional development systems. This ‘Practical Guide to Designing Comprehensive Principal Evaluation Systems’ is intended to assist states and districts in developing systems of principal evaluation and support. The guide is organized into three sections: (1) Research and Policy Context; (2) State Accountability and District Responsibility in Principal Evaluation Systems; and (3) Development and Implementation of Comprehensive Principal Evaluation Systems. The document should be used as a facilitation tool for conversation among designers. State and district policymakers should address all components of the guide, but also should capitalize on local capacity and processes when doing so.”

Clifford, M., Menon, R., Gangi, T., Condon, C., & Hornung, K. (2012). Measuring school climate for gauging principal performance: A review of the validity and reliability of publicly accessible measures (Quality School Leadership Issue Brief). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from

From the ERIC abstract: “This policy brief provides principal evaluation system designers information about the technical soundness and cost (i.e., time requirements) of publicly available school climate surveys. The authors focus on the technical soundness of school climate surveys because they believe that using validated and reliable surveys as an outcomes measure can contribute to an evaluation’s fairness, accuracy, and utility for a state or a school district. However, none of the climate surveys that they reviewed were expressly validated for principal evaluation purposes. They advise states and school districts to carefully study principal evaluation systems that are performing well and then select climate surveys that are useful measures of performance. In addition, policymakers tell them that they need technical soundness and cost information to initially screen possible measures for inclusion in principal evaluation systems. Designers can use the information presented in this brief to identify technically sound school climate surveys and then critically review those surveys to determine how well they fit into principal evaluation system designs. This brief begins with an overview of school climate surveys and their potential uses for principal evaluation. Next it outlines the procedure for reviewing school climate surveys, which is followed by brief synopses of each survey that meets the minimum criteria for inclusion in the review. The brief ends with a discussion of the surveys reviewed.”

Davis, S., Kearney, K., Sanders, N., Thomas, C., & Leon, R. (2011). The policies and practices of principal evaluation: A review of the literature. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved from

From the abstract: “The purpose of this report is to review and relate what research does and does not say about principal evaluation systems. Sources include peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed research studies focused on principal evaluation systems that highlight what is known about policies and practices that contribute to comprehensive, effective principal evaluation. Analysis of existing primary-source studies indicates that while important and informative work has been done, research on the subject of principal evaluation lacks volume and depth. Therefore, in addition to primary sources, this review also examines secondary sources drawn from professional literature to supplement the thin empirical research base. Together, primary- and secondary-source literature high-light a number of key points that may provide guidance to practitioners and policymakers charged with evaluating principals as a means to assess and increase principal effectiveness.”

Fuller, E. J., Hollingworth, L., & Liu, J. (2015). Evaluating state principal evaluation plans across the United States. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 10(3), 164–192. Retrieved from

From the ERIC abstract: “Recent federal legislation has created strong incentives for states to adopt principal evaluation systems, many of which include new measures of principal effectiveness such as estimates of student growth and changes in school climate. Yet, there has been little research on principal evaluation systems and no state-by-state analysis of the principal evaluation systems adopted at the behest of the legislation. This study uses survey data and document review to assess the components of principal evaluation systems in the 50 states and Washington, D.C. Finally, based on recent research, this study critiques the various components of these new evaluation systems.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Galloway, M. K., & Ishimaru, A. M. (2015). Radical recentering: Equity in educational leadership standards. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(3), 372–408. Retrieved from

From the ERIC abstract: “Background: The widely adopted Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium standards are designed to guide the preparation and professional development of educational leaders. However, the standards’ limited mention of race, class, ethnicity, ability, gender, sexuality, or other marginalized identities suggests that addressing persistent inequities need not be a central concern of preparation programs and leaders in P-12 schools. Purpose and Proposed Model: In this article, we put forth a new set of standards with equity at the core. We seek to advance the conversation about why standards centered on equity are needed—particularly in light of a proposed standards refresh—and what implications would follow from equity-focused standards. To this end, we offer 10 high-leverage equitable leadership practices, identified through research and the extant literature as those most likely to mitigate disparities for students who have not been well served due to their race, class, ethnicity, home language, and/or ability. We discuss how a set of equity-focused leadership standards would facilitate radical changes in leadership preparation programs, professional development, and evaluation. Implications: We aim for this work to augment the conversation around leadership standards and compel action to bring equity to the center.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Galloway, M. K., & Ishimaru, A. M. (2017). Equitable leadership on the ground: Converging on high-leverage practices. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(2). Retrieved from

From the ERIC abstract: “What would leadership standards look like if developed through a lens and language of equity? We engaged with a group of 40 researchers, practitioners, and community leaders recognized as having expertise on equity in education to address this question. Using a Delphi technique, an approach designed to elicit expert feedback and measure convergence around a question of interest, these leaders participated in three rounds of data gathering. In Rounds One and Two, the 40 participants described and then rated leadership practices they believed to be most likely to mitigate race, class, and other group-based disparities between dominant and nondominant students. In Round Three, 14 of these experts participated in focus group sessions, using the findings from the first two rounds to ultimately converge around 10 high-leverage leadership practices for equity. Findings highlight the importance of leadership centered on countering systemic and structural barriers that maintain disparities, with implications for leadership preparation, policy, and tools to support organizational leadership for equity.”

Grissom, J. A., Blissett, R. S. L., & Mitani, H. (2018). Evaluating school principals: Supervisor ratings of principal practice and principal job performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 446–472. Retrieved from

From the ERIC abstract: “Numerous studies investigate high-stakes personnel evaluation systems in education, but nearly all focus on evaluation of teachers. We instead examine the evaluation of school principals at scale using data from the first 4 years of implementation of Tennessee’s multiple-measure administrator evaluation system. We focus specifically on the rubric-based practice ratings given by principals’ supervisors that constitute one half of principals’ overall evaluation scores. We find that supervisors’ ratings are internally consistent, relatively stable over time, and predictive of other performance measures, such as student achievement growth and teachers’ ratings of school leadership quality. However, raters fail to differentiate dimensions of principal practice, and ratings may be biased by factors, such as school poverty, outside the principal’s control.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Herrmann, M., & Ross, C. (2016). Measuring principals’ effectiveness: Results from New Jersey’s first year of statewide principal evaluation (REL 2016-156). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic. Retrieved from

From the ERIC abstract: “States and districts across the country are implementing new principal evaluation systems that include measures of the quality of principals’ school leadership practices and measures of student achievement growth. Because these evaluation systems will be used for high-stakes decisions, it is important that the component measures of the evaluation systems fairly and accurately differentiate between effective and ineffective principals. This requires the measures to be reliable (consistent across raters and observations) and valid (accurately measuring true principal performance). This study examined data from 2013/14, the first year of statewide implementation. It examined four statistical properties of the system’s component measures: the variation in overall and component measure ratings across principals, the year-to-year stability of overall and component measure ratings, the correlations between component measure ratings and characteristics of students in the schools, and the correlations among component measure ratings. Information about these properties of the measures can inform efforts to improve the principal evaluation system and revise the guidance districts receive. Key findings include: (1) Nearly all principals received effective or highly effective overall ratings; (2) The percentage of principals who received highly effective overall ratings was lower for principals who were evaluated on school median student growth percentiles than for principals who were not evaluated on this measure; (3) Principal practice instrument ratings and school median student growth percentiles had moderate to high year-to-year stability; (4) Several component measure ratings—school median student growth percentile ratings, teachers’ student growth objective ratings, and principal practice instrument ratings—as well as the overall rating, had low, negative correlations with student socioeconomic disadvantage; and (5) Principals’ ratings on component measures had low to moderate positive correlations with each other.”

Kearney, K., Lara-Brady, L., Mattson Almanzán, H., & Vince, S. (2012). An overview of commercially available principal evaluation resources. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved from

From the description: “To improve principal evaluation systems, state and district leaders must make decisions about commercially available resources that may be useful. This overview aims to assist state and district leaders in the decision-making process. Information in this overview can be used to support states and districts in identifying some of the resources to be considered in taking appropriate next steps to evaluate school leaders, design an evaluation method, and/or buy a program or service. These resources were recommended either by district practitioners using them or were noted by experts in the field, in topic-related reports, as being used by districts.”

Kennedy, K. (2019). Centering equity and caring in leadership for social-emotional learning: Toward a conceptual framework for diverse learners. Journal of School Leadership, 29(6), 473–492. Retrieved from

From the abstract: “School leaders must navigate nonacademic barriers to learning. One type of affective, nonacademic reform is social-emotional learning (SEL), a quickly growing K–12 school initiative. Yet scant empirical literature exists on the actions, interactions, and beliefs of school principals charged with leading SEL reforms. The needs of diverse learners in SEL reforms—and how school leaders might create culturally relevant, gender-aware, queer-friendly SEL programming—are ignored by empirical research. This article seeks to contribute conceptually by exploring two questions: To what extent does current research inform school leadership of SEL implementation for diverse learners? How might school leaders conceptualize the implementation of SEL reforms from a caring, equity-oriented lens? A leadership framework for SEL reforms, rooted in caring and equity, is proposed.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Kimball, S. M., Arrigoni, J., Clifford, M., Yoder, M., & Milanowski, A. (2015). District leadership for effective principal evaluation and support. Washington, DC: Teacher Incentive Fund, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from

From the ERIC abstract: “Research demonstrating principals’ impact on student learning outcomes has fueled the shift from principals as facilities managers to an emphasis on instructional leadership (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Principals are under increasing pressure to carry out effective instructional leadership practices, including those needed to adopt college- and career-ready standards and more comprehensive teacher evaluation approaches. To improve instructional leadership performance, districts are stepping up principal support and oversight by increasing the focus of principal supervisors on principal evaluation and school leadership support functions (Canole & Richardson, 2014; Corcoran, Casserly, Price-Baugh, Walston, Hall, & Simon, 2013; Honig, 2012, 2013; Honig, Copland, Rainey, Lorton, & Newton, 2010). Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) sites, like many schools and districts nationwide, are implementing new principal evaluation systems intended to be meaningful for both accountability and leadership improvement purposes. We explore in this brief how four TIF grantees are: 1. Training principal evaluators and monitoring principal evaluations to promote rating accuracy and improved performance feedback; 2. Using principal evaluation processes and measures to support principal professional learning and performance; and 3. Providing other supports for principals to improve their leadership. The grantees featured include Broward County School District, Miami-Dade County School District, two districts participating in the Ohio TIF project, and Denver Public Schools. We begin with a brief review of literature about supporting principal evaluators and using evaluation to support principal development. We then provide a summary of each site’s evaluation process and describe how the four sites support principal evaluators and principal performance improvement. The brief concludes with questions current and future TIF grantees should consider as they reflect on how their systems are working or plan changes to better support principal supervisors and principals in order to improve supervision and instructional leadership.”

McCullough, M., Lipscomb, S., Chiang, H., Gill, B., & Cheban, I. (2016). Measuring school leaders’ effectiveness: Final report from a multiyear pilot of Pennsylvania’s Framework for Leadership (REL 2016-106). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic. Retrieved from

From the ERIC abstract: “This study examines the accuracy of performance ratings from the Framework for Leadership (FFL), Pennsylvania’s tool for evaluating the leadership practices of principals and assistant principals. The study analyzed four key properties of the FFL: score variation, internal consistency, year-to-year stability, and concurrent validity. Score variation was characterized by the percentages of school leaders earning scores in different portions of the rating scale. To measure the internal consistency of the FFL, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the full FFL and for each of its four categories of leadership practices. Analyses of score stability used data on FFL scores of school years across two years to calculate Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Concurrent validity was assessed through a regression model for the relationship between school leaders’ estimated contributions to student achievement growth and their FFL scores. This report is based primarily on the 2013/14 pilot in which 517 principals and 123 assistant principals were rated by their supervisors; an interim report examined data from the 2012/13 pilot year. The study finds that the FFL is a reliable measure, with good internal consistency and a moderate level of year-to-year stability in scores. The study also finds evidence of the FFL’s concurrent validity: principals with higher scores on the FFL, on average, make larger estimated contributions to student achievement growth. Higher total FFL scores and scores in two of the four FFL domains are significantly or marginally significantly associated with both value-added in all subjects combined and value-added in math specifically. This evidence of the validity of the FFL sets it apart from other principal evaluation tools: No other measures of principals’ professional practice have been shown to be related to principals’ effects on student achievement. However, in both pilot years, variation in scores was limited, with most school leaders scoring in the upper third of the rating scale. As the FFL is implemented statewide, continued examination of evidence on its statistical properties, especially the variation in scores, is important.”

Riley, D. L., & Meredith, J. (2017). State efforts to strengthen school leadership: Insights from CCSSO action groups. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. Retrieved from

From the ERIC abstract: “Many states across the nation are working to improve school leadership, some on a substantial scale. Several factors encourage state-level work focused on principals, including: research evidence of principal effects on student learning, flexibility in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), new national professional standards for principals, lessons learned from teacher evaluation and development, and available support from organizations with a focus on school leadership. The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), with funding from The Wallace Foundation, supported states through two principal-focused ‘action groups’ during the 2016-17 school year. Each action group convened teams of state staff for a series of facilitated in-person meetings and webinars through which each state could develop and carry out action plans that identified a problem of practice and strategies for rapid implementation. Teams included state education agency (SEA) division directors, program managers, and line staff. Twenty-eight states joined the groups, with a shared interest in working on principal evaluation and support and/or principal professional learning. This brief is intended to inform state leaders and others in the field about the participating states’ efforts to strengthen the recruitment, preparation, support, and supervision of school leaders. It summarizes the state teams’ priorities, accomplishments, and perspectives related to school leadership. These states are not representative of the nation, but their priorities and activities in school leadership reveal trends in approaches and needs, along with examples of state initiatives underway or planned. One-page state snapshots appear in the Appendix. The states generously shared the information and ideas presented in this report through (1) telephone interviews with 33 participants in 25 states and (2) a survey with responses from 55 participants in 25 states (70% response rate). Representatives from each participating state were given an opportunity to review and vet information shared about their state.”

Ross, E. & Walsh, K. (2019). State of the States 2019: Teacher and principal evaluation policy. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from

From the abstract: “This report is the first in a series by the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) that examines the current status of states’ teacher policies. Updated on a two-year cycle, each will cover a specific area of teacher policy. This report focuses on state teacher policies governing what states require in evaluations of both teachers and principals. The next edition will cover states’ teacher preparation policies, and the third edition will cover states’ compensation and personnel policies.”

Sanders, N., Kearney, K., & Vince, S. (2012). Using multiple forms of data in principal evaluations: An overview with examples (Integrated Leadership Development Initiative). San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved from

From the ERIC abstract: “The Integrated Leadership Development Initiative (ILDI) is a cross-agency partnership that focuses on collaboratively guiding and supporting leader development and improving conditions of leadership so that there are highly accomplished leaders in every district and school in California. In this brief, ILDI focuses on Principal Evaluations and provides information about the most important aspects of principal performance—what principals do; how they do it; and the impact they have on their schools, teaching, and student learning. Recent developments in measures of principal knowledge and performance and of principal evaluation models emphasize the need to collect and use multiple forms of data to capture the scope and complexity of new expectations. This brief explains basic concepts about multiple forms of data that apply to principal evaluation systems. It then provides examples for using multiple forms of data that illustrate a wide range of options used by states, districts, and organizations. The examples demonstrate various choices and decisions that use multiple data sources within context-specific purposes and resources.”

Slotnik, W. J., Bugler, D., & Liang, G. (2016). Stay the course: Teacher and principal evaluation in Maryland. Washington, DC: Mid-Atlantic Comprehensive Center at WestEd. Retrieved from

From the ERIC abstract: “The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) is leading and supporting the implementation of a Teacher and Principal Evaluation (TPE) system in all school districts in the state. This study examines the progress of four years of TPE implementation, 2013 to 2016. The study draws on nearly 60,000 survey responses from principals and teachers (1,905 responses in 2013, 16,314 in 2014, 19,022 in 2015, and 21,916 in 2016) and extensive interviews of educators at central and school site levels. Based on the ongoing analysis of these data, the key findings are as follows: (1) TPE implementation shows strong progress over four years; (2) State support for TPE implementation is pivotal; (3) School and district leadership is critical to TPE implementation; (4) Principals and teachers still need support; (5) Quality matters; (6) Consistency is a cornerstone of effective TPE implementation; (7) Districts need thoughtful management of the evaluation system; and (8) In the transition to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Maryland’s educators want to stay the course. The report concludes with recommendations focusing on strengthening leadership and further improving implementation at central and school site levels within Maryland’s districts.”

Additional Organizations to Consult

Center on Great Teachers and Leaders –

From the website: “Traditionally the purview of districts, control over teacher and principal evaluation policy is increasingly shifting to the state level; there is wide variation, however, in what role states adopt and what degree of flexibility is left to districts in designing and implementing new evaluation systems. The State Roles page provides a brief narrative describing the distribution of control over teacher evaluation policy in each state. To allow for easy comparison, each state is categorized according to one of three hypothetical models representing low, moderate, or high levels of state control over both teacher and principal evaluation policy.”

National Council on Teacher Quality –

From the website: “The 2017 Yearbook evaluates states against nine policy goals with this year’s edition adding areas to reflect teacher diversity initiatives, principal evaluation and support systems, and state support for teacher leadership opportunities.”

Principal Evaluation Resource Collection at WestEd –

From the website: “This free collection provides examples and features of effective principal evaluation systems employed by states and districts. Resources include considerations for developing local systems, examples of implementation processes and resources that support these systems, and literature reviews identifying themes and perspectives that might be useful to practitioners and policymakers working to improve district principal evaluation systems. The collection, developed the California Comprehensive Center at WestEd, can be useful for both research and practice purposes, providing multiple examples of current principal evaluation policies and systems. Information in this collection can help states and districts identify resources to be considered in taking appropriate next steps to evaluate school leaders, design an evaluation method, and/or to buy a program or service.”


Keywords and Search Strings

The following keywords and search strings were used to search the reference databases and other sources:

  • “Administrator evaluation” principals

  • Equity “Administrator evaluation” principals

  • Measuring principals’ effectiveness

  • Principal evaluation by state

  • “Principal evaluation system”

  • “Principal evaluation system” equity

  • “Principal evaluation system” “social justice”

  • Principals

Databases and Search Engines

We searched ERIC for relevant resources. ERIC is a free online library of more than 1.6 million citations of education research sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). Additionally, we searched IES and Google Scholar.

Reference Search and Selection Criteria

When we were searching and reviewing resources, we considered the following criteria:

  • Date of the publication: References and resources published over the last 15 years, from 2004 to present, were included in the search and review.

  • Search priorities of reference sources: Search priority is given to study reports, briefs, and other documents that are published or reviewed by IES and other federal or federally funded organizations.

  • Methodology: We used the following methodological priorities/considerations in the review and selection of the references: (a) study types—randomized control trials, quasi-experiments, surveys, descriptive data analyses, literature reviews, policy briefs, and so forth, generally in this order, (b) target population, samples (e.g., representativeness of the target population, sample size, volunteered or randomly selected), study duration, and so forth, and (c) limitations, generalizability of the findings and conclusions, and so forth.
This memorandum is one in a series of quick-turnaround responses to specific questions posed by educational stakeholders in the Midwest Region (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin), which is served by the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL Midwest) at American Institutes for Research. This memorandum was prepared by REL Midwest under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Contract ED-IES-17-C-0007, administered by American Institutes for Research. Its content does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.