SAMS: Helping Principals Make
Time for Instructional Leadership
Lloyd Kilmer, Western Illinois UniversityBridget Sheng, Western Illinois University
Lora Wolff, Western Illinois UniversityStuart Yager, Western Illinois University
2
Contact us at:Lloyd Kilmer, [email protected] Sheng, [email protected] Yager, [email protected] Wolff, [email protected]
Lloyd Bridget LoraStuart
What is a SAM?SAM = School Administration
ManagerA SAM is designed to change
the role of principal from a managerial leader to an instructional leader.
Source: School Administrators of Iowa, “Iowa Sam”3
Why a SAM?Principals spend 70% of their
time managing…BusesBudgetBehavior
That leaves 30% of their time for instructional issues
Source: SAM, I Am, The Principal’s Story video 4
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”5
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)
CelebrationsSource: “ASAS Time/Task Analysis” 6
How and when did the SAM Project begin?
2002 in Louisville, KY“Alternative School Administration Study”
that examined the use of principal’s timeLooked 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 7
Background of the Study
Primary Investigator, Lloyd Kilmer
8
The Davenport Community School
District StudyThe 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.
9
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.
10
Student Enrollment (preschool-12th grade) – 15,841 students (October 1, 2012 – Official Enrollment Count Day)
Student Diversity59% White18.7% Black of African-American12.1% Hispanic7.7% Multi-racial2% Asian0.4% American Indian or Alaskan Native0.1% Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
11
12
Participant Demographics (Survey
Data)
Teaching Assignmentof Teachers’ Surveyed
Teaching Assignment
Number of
Teachers
Percentage
Elementary 231 69.4%Middle School
102 30.6%
High School 0 0%Total 333 100%
13
Teaching Assignmentof Teachers’ Surveyed
Years of Teaching Experience
Elementary Middle School
1-5 62 236-10 25 2911-15 43 2016-20 24 13Over 20 75 18Total 229 103
14
Quantitative ResultsPrimary Statistician, Bridget Sheng
15
About the SAM SurveyTeacher perception of improvement and the
extent of improvementTwo major areas
Management Instructional Leadership
FrequencyQuality
MeasurementAgreement of improvement: SD, D, A, SA
(strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)Extent of improvement: none, a little, moderate,
a lot16
SAM SurveyManagement
Support staff efficiencyBuilding managementStudent supervisionDiscipline ManagementFacilitation of school Improvement
processesInstructional Leadership
FrequencyQuality
17
SAM SurveyInstructional Leadership
Feedback on teaching from formal and informal observations
Administrative support for student academic needs
Positive reinforcement on staff performance
Job-embedded professional developmentFrequencyQuality – additional two items
Implementing Iowa PD modelTeaching performance 18
SAM Survey ResultsMajority teachers agree or strongly agree
with improvement in management and instructional leadershipTeachers 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%)
19
SAM Survey ResultsIn regards to the extent of improvement in
Management and Instructional LeadershipMost 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%).
20
SAM Survey ResultsTeacher 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. 21
Qualitative Results--Principals
Stuart Yager
22
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
23
Analysis of Principal Focus Groups--ConsLack 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
24
Analysis of Principal Focus Groups--OverallLack 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
Qualitative Results--SAMs
Lora Wolff
26
Analysis of SAM Focus Groups--ProsAll 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 efficientChange in operations--Parents ask to speak
to the SAM rather than the principal
27
Analysis of SAM Focus Groups--ConsPeriod of adjustment during the first year of
the Principal/SAM relationshipCommunication was difficult—not all
information was relayed to the principal/SAMPrincipals have varying levels of comfort in
turning over responsibilities to SAMCommunication—Principal/SAM need to find
the best modes to communicateOffice support staff needs to be trained in
the process
28
Analysis of SAM Focus Groups--OverallNeed 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 lateBeing a SAM is “extremely rewarding”Gaining skills to be an effective administrator
29
Closing RemarksSAM is a processRedefines 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
30
Final ReportIf you’d like a copy of the final
report, please…
leave a business card or include your email address on
the sign-up up sheet oremail me ([email protected])
31
Questions…….Comments
32
33
Contact us at:
Lloyd Kilmer, [email protected] Sheng, [email protected] Yager, [email protected] Wolff, [email protected]
Lloyd Bridget LoraStuart
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.34
Top Related