SAMS: Helping Principals Make Time for Instructional Leadership

1. SAMS: Helping Principals Make Time for Instructional Leadership Lloyd Kilmer, Western Illinois University Bridget Sheng, Western Illinois University Lora Wolff, Western Illinois University Stuart Yager, Western Illinois University

2. 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 Lora Stuart Lloyd Bridget

3. What is a SAM? • SAM = School Administration Manager • A SAM is designed to change the role of principal from a managerial leader to an instructional leader. Source: School Administrators of Iowa, “Iowa Sam”

4. Why a SAM? • Principals spend 70% of their time managing… • Buses • Budget • Behavior • That leaves 30% of their time for instructional issues Source: SAM, I Am, The Principal’s Story video

5. What do SAMS do? • SAMs help principals use time/task data to reflect on their practice. • SAMS help principals increase the time they spend as instructional leaders. • SAMS help principals strengthen relationships with teachers, parents and students to improve teaching and learning. • 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”

6. Examples of Management Tasks • Student supervision (bus, lunch, recess, hallways) • Student discipline (behavior management) • Employee supervision (monitoring support staff) • Employee discipline (work rules, warnings) • Office work/preparation (copying, finding materials, agendas) • Building management (maintenance, cleaning) • Parents/guardians (attendance, illness) • Decision making committees, groups, meetings • District meetings, supervisors • External: officials, meetings (fire marshal, DHS) • Celebrations Source: “ASAS Time/Task Analysis”

7. How and when did the SAM Project begin? • 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 Source: FAQ: National School Administration Manager Project

8. Background of the Study Primary Investigator, Lloyd Kilmer

9. The Davenport Community School District Study • The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions of the School Administrative Manager (SAM) system implemented in the Davenport Community Schools. • 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.

10. 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. • Facilities: • 4 High Schools • 4 Intermediate Schools • 2 K-8 Schools • 17 Elementary Schools • 4 Early Childhood Learning Centers • Budget: A highly trained staff of financial experts maintains a budget of over $200 million to ensure the effective use of funds. 

11. 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

12. Participant Demographics (Survey Data)

13. Teaching Assignmentof Teachers’ Surveyed

14. Teaching Assignmentof Teachers’ Surveyed

15. Quantitative Results Primary Statistician, Bridget Sheng

16. About the SAM Survey • Teacher perception of improvement and the extent of improvement • 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

17. SAM Survey • Management • Support staff efficiency • Building management • Student supervision • Discipline Management • Facilitation of school Improvement processes • Instructional Leadership • Frequency • Quality

18. SAM Survey • 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 • Frequency • Quality – additional two items • Implementing Iowa PD model • Teaching performance

19. SAM Survey Results • Majority teachers agree or strongly agree with improvement in management and instructional leadership • Teachers from intermediate schools gave 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%)

20. SAM Survey Results • In regards to the extent of improvement in Management and Instructional Leadership • Most teachers from intermediate schools perceive moderate to great improvement (56%-80%) • 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%).

21. 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 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.

22. Qualitative Results--Principals Stuart Yager

23. Analysis of Principal Focus Groups--Pros • Focused on detailed time monitoring with SAM encouragement • Awareness of threshold/balance between instructional 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 • Opportunity to model/do instructional leadership • Improved relationship with teachers - focused on improving instruction • Realignment of job description/priorities -- order of contact -- not principal first

24. Analysis of Principal Focus Groups--Cons • Lack of principal involvement in selecting the SAM • Being out of touch with the operational/management 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 issuesThe SAM is not for all principals - it takes a certain leadership style/confidence to work with a SAM

25. Analysis of Principal Focus Groups--Overall • Lack of principal involvement in selecting the SAM • Being out of touch with the operational/management 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 issuesThe SAM is not for all principals - it takes a certain leadership style/confidence to work with a SAM

26. Qualitative Results--SAMs Lora Wolff

27. Analysis of SAM Focus Groups--Pros • All of the SAMs had had previous leadership roles which made the transition somewhat easier • Principals are now getting into the classroom more regularly • Manage the principal’s daily calendar (scheduling) • Office operations have become more efficient • Change in operations--Parents ask to speak to the SAM rather than the principal

28. Analysis of SAM Focus Groups--Cons • Period of adjustment during the first year of the Principal/SAM relationship • Communication was difficult—not all information was relayed to the principal/SAM • Principals have varying levels of comfort in turning 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

29. Analysis of SAM Focus Groups--Overall • Need to learn about strict confidence • So much to learn—processes, management, special education, evaluation, law, district policies • Personality differences/management style 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

30. Closing Remarks • SAM is a process • Redefines the role of principal • “We have not found a single case of a school improving its student achievement record in the absence of talented leadership.” (How Leadership Affects Student Learning) • Next Steps: Analyze student achievement over time in schools where there is a SAM

31. Final Report • If you’d like a copy of the final report, please… • leave a business card or • include your email address on the sign-up up sheetor • email me (ll-wolff@wiu.edu)

32. Questions…….Comments

33. 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 Lora Lloyd Stuart Bridget

34. Resources • Alternative school administration study. (2005, October). Leading Educational Achievement in Districts, a Wallace Foundation Initiative. • ASAS time/task analysis. (2007). • Fact sheet: National school administration manager project. • Frequently asked Questions: National school administration manager project. The Wallace Foundation. • Haslam, M. & B. Turnbull. (2011, August). Costs of participation in the school administration manager (SAM) process. NY: Policy Studies Associates, Inc. • How principals manage their time is key to improving instruction in their schools. Retrieved from http://www.ernweb.com/public/1175print.cfm • Iowa SAM. Iowa School Administration Manager Program. • Leithwood, K., K. Louis, S. Anderson & K. Wahlstrom. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. The Wallace Foundation. • The School principal as leader: Guiding Schools to better teaching and learning. (2012, January). The Wallace Foundation. • Shellinger, Mark. Getting Ready. • Turnbull, B., R. White, and E. Arcaira. (2010, August). “Achievement trends in schools with school administration managers (SAMs). NY: Policy Studies Associates, Inc. • Turnbull, B., E. Arcaira, & B. Sinclair. (2011, August). Implementation of the national SAM innovation object: A comparison of project designs. NY: Policy Studies Associates, Inc. • Turnbull, B. M. Haslam, E. Arcaira, D. Riley, B. Sinclair, & S. Coleman. (2009, December). Evaluation of the school administration manager project. NY; Policy Studies Associates, Inc.