What Is A SAM? Why A SAM?

1/26/14 SAMS: Helping Principals Make Time for Instructional Leadership Lloyd Bridget Stuart Lora Contact us at: Lloyd Kilmer, lc-kilmer@wiu.edu Bridget Sheng, zb-sheng@wiu.edu Stuart Yager, so-yager@wiu.edu Lora Wolff, ll-wolff@wiu.edu Lloyd Kilmer, Western Illinois University Bridget Sheng, Western Illinois University Lora Wolff, Western Illinois University Stuart Yager, Western Illinois University 2 What is a SAM? Why a SAM? SAM School Administration Principals spend 70% of their time Manager A SAM is designed to change the role of principal from a managerial leader to an instructional leader. managing Buses Budget Behavior That leaves 30% of their time for instructional issues Source: School Administrators of Iowa, “Iowa Sam” 3 4 Examples of Management Tasks What do SAMS do? Student supervision (bus, lunch, recess, hallways) SAMs help principals use time/task data to reflect Student discipline (behavior management) on their practice. SAMS help principals increase the time they spend as instructional leaders. Employee supervision (monitoring support staff) Employee discipline (work rules, warnings) SAMS help principals strengthen relationships with teachers, parents and students to improve teaching and learning. Office work/preparation (copying, finding materials, agendas) Building management (maintenance, cleaning) Parents/guardians (attendance, illness) SAMs help principals distribute management responsibilities and work with classified and support staff to keep routine management administration work from pulling the principal away from instructional leadership. Source: School Administrators of Iowa, “Iowa Sam” Source: SAM, I Am, The Principal’s Story video 5 Decision making committees, groups, meetings District meetings, supervisors External: officials, meetings (fire marshal, DHS) Celebrations Source: “ASAS Time/Task Analysis” 6 1

1/26/14 How and when did the SAM Project begin? Background of the Study Primary Investigator, Lloyd Kilmer 2002 in Louisville, KY “Alternative School Administration Study” that examined the use of principal’s time Looked at conditions that prevented principals from becoming instructional leaders Nine Wallace partner states are participating in the SAM pilot—California, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, IOWA, Kentucky, Missouri, New York and Texas 7 Source: FAQ: National School Administration Manager Project The Davenport Community School District Study 8 PORT COMMUNITY SCHOOLS AT A GLANCE Communities Served: DCSD serves the communities of Blue Grass, Buffalo, Davenport, and Walcott. This total land area covers 109 square miles. The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions of the School Administrative Manager (SAM) system implemented in the Davenport Community Schools. Facilities: 4 High Schools 4 Intermediate Schools 2 K-8 Schools 17 Elementary Schools 4 Early Childhood Learning Centers The first phase of the study was to conduct a survey of the teachers, who work in the schools where SAMs are part of the Administrative Team, on the managerial and leadership impact of the system. Phase Two included conducting focus group interviews with the SAMs and the principals to discover the advantages and disadvantages to the interaction with, and support offered, by the SAMs. Budget: A highly trained staff of financial experts maintains a budget of over 200 million to ensure the effective use of funds. 9 10 Participant Demographics (Survey Data) Student Enrollment (preschool-12th grade) – 15,841 students (October 1, 2012 – Official Enrollment Count Day) Student Diversity 59% White 18.7% Black of African-American 12.1% Hispanic 7.7% Multi-racial 2% Asian 0.4% American Indian or Alaskan Native 0.1% Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 11 12 2

1/26/14 Teaching Assignment of Teachers’ Surveyed Teaching Assignment Elementary Middle School High School Total Number of Teachers 231 102 0 333 Teaching Assignment of Teachers’ Surveyed Percentage Years of Teaching Experience 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 Over 20 Total 69.4% 30.6% 0% 100% Elementary Middle School 62 25 43 24 75 229 23 29 20 13 18 103 13 14 About the SAM Survey Quantitative Results Teacher perception of improvement and the extent of improvement Primary Statistician, Bridget Sheng Two major areas Management Instructional Leadership Frequency Quality Measurement Agreement of improvement: SD, D, A, SA (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree) Extent of improvement: none, a little, moderate, a lot 15 16 SAM Survey SAM Survey Management Support staff efficiency Building management Student supervision Discipline Management Facilitation of school Improvement Instructional Leadership Feedback on teaching from formal and informal observations Administrative support for student academic needs Positive reinforcement on staff performance Job-embedded professional development processes Frequency Instructional Leadership Frequency Quality Quality – additional two items Implementing Iowa PD model Teaching performance 17 18 3

1/26/14 SAM Survey Results SAM Survey Results In regards to the extent of improvement in Majority teachers agree or strongly agree with improvement in management and instructional leadership Teachers from intermediate schools gave Management and Instructional Leadership Most teachers from intermediate schools perceive moderate to great improvement (56%-80%) overwhelming positive responses (75%-90%) Teacher responses from elementary schools are positive but less strong (58%-76%) For both groups, highest rating is in Management, top rated management aspect is Facilitation of school improvement processes Less positive in quality of instructional leadership, least positive responses are from teachers of elementary schools on effectiveness of implementing Iowa PD model (58%) In management, over ¾ of intermediate school teachers perceive moderate to great improvement in student supervision (78%), discipline management (75%), and facilitation of school improvement processes (80%). In instructional leadership, over 2/3 of intermediate school teachers perceive moderate to great improvement in principal feedback (69-73%) and administrative support of student academic needs (68-70%). 19 20 Qualitative Results-Principals SAM Survey Results Teacher responses from elementary schools in regards to the extent of improvement are less favorable compared to those from intermediate schools, but majority of them perceive some improvement. A third to half of them perceive moderate to great Stuart Yager improvement (33%-51%). The exception is in student supervision where over 68% perceive moderate to great improvement. Half of them perceive moderate to great improvement in discipline management (50%), frequency and quality of feedback (50-51%). In improving support staff efficiency, building management, and in implementing Iowa PD model, more elementary school teachers perceive a little improvement than moderate to great improvement. 21 Analysis of Principal Focus Groups--Pros 22 Analysis of Principal Focus Groups--Cons Focused on detailed time monitoring with SAM encouragement Lack of principal involvement in selecting the SAM Awareness of threshold/balance between instructional Being out of touch with the operational/management side of the building leadership and building management- so not to feel out of touch with the management of the building Established a useful, trusting, confidential partnership between the principal and the SAM Personality differences/management style differences between principal and the SAM Lack of contact with difficult parents/students and Opportunity to model/do instructional leadership Improved relationship with teachers - focused on improving instruction the perception not being traditional that you see the principal first Slower (not directly involved with building and Realignment of job description/priorities -- order of contact -not principal first 23 student problems) communication of management issues The SAM is not for all principals - it takes a certain leadership style/confidence to work with a SAM 24 4

1/26/14 Analysis of Principal Focus Groups--Overall Lack of principal involvement in selecting the SAM Qualitative Results--SAMs Being out of touch with the operational/management Lora Wolff side of the building Personality differences/management style differences between principal and the SAM Lack of contact with difficult parents/students and the perception not being traditional that you see the principal first Slower (not directly involved with building and student problems) communication of management issues The SAM is not for all principals - it takes a certain leadership style/confidence to work with a SAM 25 Analysis of SAM Focus Groups--Pros 26 Analysis of SAM Focus Groups--Cons All of the SAMs had had previous leadership roles Period of adjustment during the first year of the Principals are now getting into the classroom more Communication was difficult—not all information Manage the principal’s daily calendar (scheduling) Principals have varying levels of comfort in turning which made the transition somewhat easier regularly Office operations have become more efficient Change in operations--Parents ask to speak to the SAM rather than the principal Principal/SAM relationship was relayed to the principal/SAM over responsibilities to SAM Communication—Principal/SAM need to find the best modes to communicate Office support staff needs to be trained in the process 27 Analysis of SAM Focus Groups--Overall 28 Closing Remarks Need to learn about strict confidence SAM is a process So much to learn—processes, management, special Redefines the role of principal Personality differences/management style “We have not found a single case of a education, evaluation, law, district policies school improving its student achievement record in the absence of talented leadership.” (How Leadership Affects Student Learning) differences between principal and the SAM Long hours—come early, stay late Being a SAM is “extremely rewarding” Gaining skills to be an effective administrator Next Steps: Analyze student achievement over time in schools where there is a SAM 29 30 5