Understanding the Chinese Superintendency in the Context of Quality-Oriented Education

The implementation of national educational reform in China calls for newer and stronger school administration. Recognizing the need to establish a knowledge base for leadership development, we employ a set of existing US professional standards for educational leaders as a frame of reference to unpack the complex role of Chinese superintendents. Using data collected from two surveys administered to more than 200 Chinese superintendents in 2007, we find that many indicators of leadership considered essential in the United States are also viewed as necessary for effective superintendency in China. Feedback from the superintendents also points out gaps between what is perceived as important and what is in practice. This article contributes to the efforts of building meaningful global dialogues among researchers and practitioners on developing a new generation of education administrators

Setting proficiency standards for school leadership assessment: an examination of cut score decision making

Purpose: Performance evaluation informs professional development and helps school personnel improve student learning. Although psychometric literature indicates that a rational, sound, and coherent standard-setting process adds to the credibility of an assessment, few studies have empirically examined the decision-making process. This article sheds light on the inner workings of setting cut scores for leadership proficiency from the deliberative perspectives of expert-panel participants, including principals, teachers, district supervisors, and researchers. Research Design: Qualitative methods are used to observe and document a standards-setting process as it takes place and to analyze the results. Findings: The findings indicate that setting cut scores for principal leadership proficiency is a cognitively demanding but achievable process for effective implementation of carefully designed procedures. The study also provides insight regarding the influence of external factors, such as backgrounds of panelists, consideration of school contexts, and concerns about consequence during the standard-setting deliberation