The Instrument Matters: New York’s Next Decision on Principal Practice

This article was originally published in the Councilgram, the newsletter of the New York State Council of School Superintendents, in the 2026 Fall Leadership Summit Edition (Volume 16, Issue 1), pages 11 and 12. The Councilgram is distributed to member superintendents across New York State.

By Dr. Michael L. Horning, Jr., President and Chief Innovation Officer, SuperEval

For years, New York districts evaluated principals with instruments from a short, approved list, and leadership evaluation was largely a compliance exercise. That era is ending. Under the State’s transition to Standards-based Educator Evaluation and Professional Support, every building principal must be evaluated against all ten Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL), and districts hold real discretion over the design. The instrument a district selects, and the process built around it, will determine whether principal evaluation becomes a vehicle for leadership growth or remains an annual formality.

That decision rests in statute. Education Law 3012-e, enacted through Chapter 143 of the Laws of 2024, established STEPS plans. Districts may transition now and must adopt a plan by June 30, 2032. Within that structure, districts determine their multiple measures, observation practices, scoring approach, and rubric. The State maintains a reference list of commonly used rubrics rather than an approved set, so instrument quality now matters more than approval status ever did.

The Empire State Supervisors and Administrators Association (ESSAA) has met that moment with the ESSAA Leadership Evaluation Framework, now in statewide professional review by the field. Developed and endorsed by the association, the framework pairs a standards-based rubric with an evaluation process and implementation tools designed by Carol Conklin-Spillane, whose four decades in New York as a teacher, principal, superintendent, and policy advisor inform the work.

The rubric is organized around the ten standards, grouped into logic clusters: the Drivers that establish purpose, the Core work of curriculum, instruction, assessment, and student care, and the Supports that make the Core possible. Beneath the standards sit 83 elements of practice, each described across four levels: Emerging, Advancing, Accomplished, and Transformational. The levels describe stages of practice rather than labels for leaders and convert to levels one through four for reporting.

The process is where the philosophy becomes visible, and it adapts for probationary and tenured leaders. Planning begins in the summer, when the evaluator and the school leader review district priorities, set goals, and select the elements to focus on, typically one or two within each standard. Evidence is drawn from the authentic work of leading rather than manufactured for a file. Professional conversations continue throughout the year, a mid-year review examines progress without assigning a rating, and the leader closes the year by assembling evidence and completing a self-assessment. A leader who has prepared that body of work arrives at the final conference ready to assert their leadership performance rather than defend it.

Because leadership is expressed differently by role, the framework includes three versions of the rubric: the principal, the assistant principal, and the director or supervisor. Each holds the same standards and philosophy while reflecting the responsibilities of the position, giving a superintendent one common language across the administrative team.

“Our members have asked for an evaluation process that develops leaders rather than simply rates them,” said Carol Conklin-Spillane, President of ESSAA. “In collaboration with Dr. Michael L. Horning, Jr., who authored the rubric and performance descriptors aligned to the ten PSEL standards, we created a framework that views evaluation as a collaborative process grounded in reflection, evidence, and continuous growth. Strong leadership is one of the most powerful drivers of successful schools, and developing accomplished leaders is among the best ways to improve student outcomes.”

A principal’s year does not resemble a teacher’s year. The evidence is different, the cycle is different, and the judgment asked of an evaluator is different. Many districts nonetheless manage principal evaluation inside systems designed for classroom observation, where a leader’s year becomes forms and scored fields. A process built on goals, evidence, reflection, and holistic judgment requires a platform built for that work.

Following the review period, ESSAA will publish the framework for the field, and SuperEval will be its exclusive platform provider under the association’s collaborative agreement. Districts that prefer their current instrument will find familiar options, including the Multidimensional Principal Performance Rubric (MPPR). As instruments and regulations change, the platform is adapted so districts can operate their STEPS plans within it while preserving the leader-led, reflective practices that place growth at the center.

The instrument a district selects, and the process built around it, will determine whether evaluation develops leaders or merely documents them. The standards already describe what effective leadership looks like. New York districts now have a chance to build the practice that brings them to life for every leader, and for the students they serve.

Horning, M. L., Jr. (2026, September). The instrument matters: New York’s next decision on principal practice. The Councilgram, 16(1), 11–12.