National FORUM Journals, Editor, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALVOLUME 27, NUMBER 3, 2010-2011

MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF ANNUAL YEARLY PROGRESS: A PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT SERIES

Lloyd C. KilmerDean L. Halverson

Western Illinois University

Georgianna L. KoenigMississippi Bend Area Education Agency

ABSTRACT

The greatest challenges of delivering professional development to educational leaders are (1) to find a means to make the content relevant to their day to day work and (2) to find the time to permit them to reflect on, discuss and implement their new learning. Staff members of the Mississippi Bend Area Education Agency in Bettendorf, IA, and faculty members of Western Illinois University Department of Educational Leadership collaborated to provide professional development for principals from eastern Iowa and western Illinois through the Principals Leadership Academy. The 2005-2007 Academy blended a variety of delivery systems, large group presentations and job-embedded activities, to best meet the needs of the participants. Program participants learned a large body of new research on leadership and also developed the steps that they could take to improve their organizations. Overall, participants were highly satisfied with this design as well as the content of the professional development; in addition, the participant group’s schools recorded overall gains in AYP in reading and math over the two years of training.

“Leadership is the guidance and direction of instructional improvement” (Elmore, 2000, p. 13).

he greatest challenges of delivering professional development to educational leaders are (1) to find a means to make the content relevant to their day to day work and (2) to find the T

4

5 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

time to permit them to reflect on, discuss and implement their new learning. The Mississippi Bend Area Education Agency, in Bettendorf, IA, has a twelve year history of providing professional development for principals through the Principals Leadership Academy. The 2005-07 Academy blended a variety of delivery systems to best meet the needs of the participants. The participants learned a large body of new research on leadership and also developed the steps that they could take to improve their organizations.

McREL created a professional development series based on the research outlined in School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results (Marzano, Waters, McNulty, 2005). For organizations that want to assist principals in their professional development, this series and its application in the field, holds great promise in assisting them to manage change, develop a purposeful community and to select the right focus for school change initiatives. In addition, superintendents who supervise principals need to know which leadership responsibilities are in the forefront during change initiatives so as to better guide and support the building level administrator.

The Mississippi Bend Area Education Agency (MBAEA), in partnership with Western Illinois University (WIU), developed a two year series of professional development opportunities for 107 principals and central office staff in the service areas of eastern Iowa and western Illinois. The director of the General Education Division contracted with McREL to deliver the newly created sessions to inform the participants of McREL’s research findings from a meta-analysis conducted to answer the question, “What does the research tell us about school leadership?” McREL professional development sessions for the first year were designed to apply this information to school practices by examining the concepts of Developing a Purposeful Community and Managing Change (Waters, McNulty, Grubb, & Cameron, 2005). In addition, the MBAEA staff members and professors from WIU developed a series of “implementation sessions” to provide participants with an opportunity to delve more

Lloyd Kilmer, Dean Halverson, & Georgianna Koenig 6

deeply into the material and to discuss the opportunities for application within their buildings/districts.

The first of the second year large group sessions included the McREL research and practice on “Choosing the Right Focus.” The other three large group sessions included “The Learning Leader” content provided by Dr. Doug Reeves and Dr. Brian McNulty of the Leadership and Learning Center. These presenters also were able to integrate the Balanced Leadership concepts into their presentations to further develop understanding of that research. The implementation sessions provided by the AEA staff and university personnel reinforced the large group sessions similar to the year one series of workshops. In addition, the leadership team at the Rock Island School District #41 decided to dedicate one of their two monthly administrative meetings to discussing, and gaining greater depth of knowledge, of the Balanced Leadership research and practices. This “job imbedded” delivery of professional development allowed the executive administrative team to learn and collaborate along with the principals.

MBAEA’s approach to improving principal learning through professional development is congruent with the Iowa Professional Development Model and the best practice that supports that model. The model, based on the work of Joyce and Showers, espouses that the most productive professional development includes the application of the cycle of theory, demonstration, practice and coaching (Joyce and Showers, 2002). In addition, the National Association for Elementary School Principals (2001) report, Leading Learning Communities: Standards for What Principals Should Know and Be Able to Do, advocates for principals to provide teachers and themselves opportunities to plan and work together in a reflective manner to focus on learning and on connecting professional development to school learning goals. Elmore (2000) reinforces this notion when he stated “People make these fundamental transitions by having many opportunities to be exposed to the idea, to argue them into their own normative belief systems, to practice the behaviors that go with these


values, to observe others practicing these behaviors, and most importantly, to be successful at practicing in the presence of others…” (p. 31). The Educational Research Service publication Professional Development for School Principals encourages staff development that is focused on student achievement, encompasses reflective practice, and is job-embedded in a manner that provides time for working, discussing, and problem solving with peers.

Design Standards

Designers of the workshop series were committed to incorporating the Standards for professional development created by the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) in the design of the series. There was considerable communication with the staff developers from McREL on the content and delivery of their new product, Balanced Leadership, and with the staff developers of the Leadership and Learning Center. In addition, the design team also designed and delivered the implementation sessions with the NSDC Standards as a framework.

Context Standards: Staff Development that Improves the Learning of all Students

Organizes adults into learning communities whose goals are aligned with those of the school and district. (Learning Communities)

Requires skillful school and district leaders who guide continuous instructional improvement. (Leadership)

Requires resources to support adult learning and collaboration. (Resources) (NSDC, 2001)

One of the unique elements of the workshop series was the inclusion of “implementation” sessions, attended by volunteer participants, to assist them in deepening their knowledge of the


content, discussing issues related to leadership in their buildings, and exploring the application of new learning. These sessions, which were “context driven,” were delivered in a variety of ways. The first option that was offered to participants included a series of half day meetings scheduled in-between the McREL and other large group presentations. These sessions were conducted by MBAEA staff and university professors. Some of the principals and curriculum directors preferred this model as it offered a time to get out of the buildings and work with other area principals and/or their own district administrator teams. Activities were created to meet the needs of individual districts and grade levels (elementary and secondary).

The second year implementation sessions which included principals from a variety of districts focused on follow-up to the large group sessions. Facilitators created activities to encourage principals to reflect on the question, “Are you doing the right work?” Principals charted their professional time distribution over several weeks to see if they truly linked their mission with how they allocated their time. In addition, consideration of Dr. Reeves’ presentation on, ”The Myth of The Silver Bullet,” lead to several conversations about the initiatives that had been selected for school improvement plans in the past. The participants were also able to reflect individually after each session in an implementation log.

The second option that was developed by the design team to extend learning was to imbed implementation activities in district administrative team regular meetings. In year two, one district committed one monthly meeting exclusively to working with the Balanced Leadership content and application within the district’s initiatives. A member of the design team planned these meetings with the district leadership team and then facilitated the meeting. An example of this type of embedded training was a session dedicated to identifying the type of changes required to develop and implement a state required process for early intervention for struggling learners. The “learning community” of Rock Island District #41 administrators not only shared their own struggles and victories in designing this


process in the district meeting, a small group also started visiting each other’s buildings to look at new strategies. This was a major shift for the principals to be involved in unified, sustained training with expert support over a two year span. The creation of “learning community” of principals has been a powerful outcome of the professional development series.

Process Standards: Staff Development that Improves the Learning of all Students

Uses disaggregated student data to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress, and help sustain continuous improvement. (Data-Driven)

Uses multiple sources of information to guide improvement and demonstrate its impact. (Evaluation)

Prepares educators to apply research to decision making. (Research-Based)

Uses learning strategies appropriate to the intended goal. (Design)

Applies knowledge about human learning and change. (Learning)

Provides educators with the knowledge and skills to collaborate. (Collaboration) (NSDC, 2001)

The process standards emphasize the use of data and system design. Adult learners appreciate the opportunity to interact with peers and to reflect on new learning. “Opportunities for group discussion and collegial problem solving typically result in more informed decisions and ownership of those decisions” (Tate, 2004, p. xxv). Reflection is also an essential element of adult learning theory. According to Tate, “In the absence of reflection, teachers (principals) either tend not to change behavior or they spend too much time simply recounting everything that had not worked in the past” (Tate, 2004, p. 105).


All participants in the workshop series were required to write a goal action plan related to the building initiatives for each year in the series. The action plans had to include a “student learning goal” and a “leadership improvement goal.” Participants had the option to add other goals for school improvement if they wished to. These goal action plans were submitted on-line and were revisited several times during each year of the workshop series. The workshop design team members responded to the plans and also responded to the four reflections that participants submitted during the course of the year. These action plans charted the participants’ progress on school improvement initiatives. This “one on one” coaching has been valuable for many of the principals as there is typically no mechanism for this type of feedback within their districts.

Content Standards: Staff Development that Improves the Learning of all Students

Prepares educators to understand and appreciate all students, create safe, orderly and supportive learning environments, and hold high expectations for their academic achievement. (Equity)

Deepens educators' content knowledge, provides them with research-based instructional strategies to assist students in meeting rigorous academic standards, and prepares them to use various types of classroom assessments appropriately. (Quality Teaching)

Provides educators with knowledge and skills to involve families and other stakeholders appropriately. (Family Involvement) (NSDC, 2001)

The Content Standards reflect the need for professional development that considers that assists educators to meet the needs of students and their families, hold high expectations for all students and deliver high quality instruction. Many of the principals focused their attention on the research based instructional strategies that will result


in higher student achievement, especially in reading and math. One of the elements of the Iowa Professional Development Model is for district and building leaders to align their district Comprehensive School Improvement Plans with individual building plans. These plans incorporate professional development specifically selected to meet the academic goals in the plans. The state of Iowa requires that the professional development selected meet standards of sound research, be delivered with fidelity and be evaluated based on teacher implementation and student performance.

The design team frequently integrated this process into the discussions on the application of Balanced Leadership and The Learning Leader content. One of the most powerful findings of the McREL meta-analysis was that principals will be more effective in dealing with second order change if they “distribute leadership.” First order change is incremental and usually is an extension of changes that have been previously introduced; second order change requires the leaders to alter the system in fundamental ways often requiring dramatic shifts from past practice and past thinking (Marzano, et. al, 2005). There is also a shift in the perception of the culture and climate of the school when principals purposely distribute leadership. This normative climate “which is characterized by collaboration and continuous improvement, develops in school where teacher effort, through a variety of principal actions, is focused on skill acquisition to achieve specific goals” (Elmore, 2000, p. 15). Providing participants with tools and strategies to purposefully plan for change and implement leadership teams was a regular element of the McREL and Learning Leader workshops and implementation sessions.

Session Feedback Data


The McREL Balanced Leadership research and content is challenging. It clearly demonstrates that effective principals can have a positive effect on student achievement; however it also demonstrates that ineffective principals contribute to poor student achievement. It includes a strong research base and borrows on many studies to offer strategies to improve principal practice. This staff development series requires much more from them than the typical isolated “sit and get” content. How did they evaluate their experience? The overall series evaluation of the 2005-06 Principals Leadership Academy (PLA) reflects a positive opinion of their experiences. Table 1 displays the analyzed data.

Table 1

Principals Leadership Academy Summative Evaluation 05-06 (N=50)

The PLA Series:

Very true for me

Fairly true for me

Not very true for me

Not true for me at all

Not sure

1. Had clear goals. 39.80 28.30 001.89 0.00 0.00

2. Had clear expectations of results.

47.17 45.28 005.66 0.00 0.00

3. Used content aligned with participants’ needs.

39.62 50.94 007.55 0.00 0.00

4. Used a variety of strategies,delivery systems, models and techniques to meet theneeds of participants.

47.17 41.51 11.32 0.00 0.00

5. Included content and best practice based on research.

86.79 11.32 00.00 1.89 0.00

6. Provided follow-up. 43.40 37.74 11.32 1.89 3.77

7. Provided opportunities for participants to practice skills.

41.51 41.51 13.21 1.89 0.00


8. Modeled mutual respect and collaboration.

79.25 20.75 00.00 0.00 0.00

(Table 1 continues)(Table 1 continued)

The PLA Series:

Very true for me

Fairly true for me



Not sure

9. Used data results to drive on-going planning cycle.

45.28 39.62 07.55 0.00 5.66

10. Expected demonstrated links to improvement of teaching and learning as an end product.

35.85 52.83 05.66 0.00 1.89

11. Increased my understanding of leadership responsibilities that result in improved learning for all.

67.92 22.64 05.66 0.00 3.77

12. a. Improved my understanding and ability to create a purposeful community.

54.72 37.74 05.66 0.00 1.89

13. b. Improved understanding and ability to manage change within the community.

54.72 39.62 05.66 0.00 0.00

14. Provided an opportunity for me to review and reflect on processes and strategies that are effective in improving student achievement.

56.60 35.85 05.66 0.00 1.89

15. Increased knowledge base through interactions and problem solving with my colleagues.

58.49 39.62 00.00 0.00 0.00

After analyzing the feedback from the 2005-2006 sessions, the design team decided to change the delivery systems and the workshop content for the next year. The team from Dr. Doug Reeves’ group, the


Leadership and Learning Center, was contracted to present the content found in The Learning Leader. This very practical, applied approach to learning leadership best practice research was combined with more customized job embedded sessions with smaller groups of participants. The design team hoped that these changes would lead to higher satisfaction in the areas reflected in items 4, 6 and 7 in the annual survey. There was more follow-up and involvement in building level applications of the research and practices. The workshop content was also customized to allow the participant to apply the Balanced Leadership concepts along with Dr. Reeves’ approach to organizational improvement.

The subsequent measure of workshop satisfaction for 2006-07 reflected this improvement in delivery of the professional development. The report reflected a higher level of satisfaction with the overall content of the workshops and other activities. Items 4, 6 and 7 reflect much higher satisfaction in the areas of variety, follow-up and application activities (targeted in the second year design.) These data are included in Table 2

Table 2

Principals Leadership Academy Summative Evaluation 06-07 (N=38)

The PLA Series:

Very true for me

Fairly true for me



Not sure

1. Had clear goals. 89.5 10.5 00.0 0.0 0.02. Had clear expectations of

results.76.3 23.7 00.0 0.0 0.0

3. Used content aligned with participants’ needs.

65.8 31.6 02.6 0.0 0.0

4. Used a variety of strategies, delivery systems, models and techniques to meet the needs of participants.

60.5 36.8 00.0 2.6 0.0

5. Included content and best 94.6 05.4 00.0 0.0 0.0


practice based on research.6. Provided follow-up. 71.1 23.7 05.3 0.0 0.0

(Table 2 continues)

(Table 2 continued)

The PLA Series:

Very true

for me

Fairly true for

me

Not very true

for me

Not true

for me at all

Not sure

7. Modeled mutual respect and collaboration.

94.7 05.3 00.0 0.0 0.0

8. Collected data on an ongoing basis regarding content and delivery.

68.4 31.6 00.0 0.0 0.0

9. Used data results to drive on-going planning cycle.

73.7 23.7 00.0 0.0 2.6

10. Expected demonstrated links to improvement of teaching and learning as an end product.

68.4 29.0 00.0 0.0 2.6

11. Increased my understanding of leadership responsibilities

that result in improved learning for all.

89.5 10.5 00.0 0.0 0.0

12. a. Improved my understanding and ability to select the right work.

79.0 18.4 02.6 0.0 0.0

13. b. Improved my understanding and ability to change my leadership behaviors to improve teaching and learning.

83.8 16.2 00.0 0.0 0.0

14. Provided an opportunity to review and reflect improvement strategies.

86.6 10.5 02.9 0.0 0.0

15. Increased my knowledge base – interaction and problem solving.

84.2 15.8 00.0 0.0 0.0

The assessment of the “job embedded” implementation sessions by the principals in Rock Island was even more positive. The


facilitation of discussion and problem solving by the agency/WIU facilitator was effective. In addition, the principals felt that the activities that were created to increase their depth of knowledge of the content and the strategies presented to implement the content were valuable. The data are included in Table 3.

Table 3

Principals Leadership Academy” Rock Island” Implementation Evaluation 2006-07 N=11

The PLA Implementation Statement:

Strongly agree Agre

eDisagree

Strongly Disagree

No Response

1. The value in BL research was reinforced.

30.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2. The facilitator provided new tools for leadership.

40.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3. The PD positively affected practice.

30.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4. The monthly meeting enhanced collaboration in group.

50.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5. The facilitator responded to the group’s needs.

50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6. The RI Cabinet supported me in my professional development.

50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7. I was able to distribute leadership.

10.0 90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

8. I expanded my professionalnetwork through PLA.

22.2 77.8 0.0 0.0 0.0


Assessing Impact on Principals

Two different procedures were utilized to assess the impact of the training on the participants who participated during both years of the professional development series. One source was an examination of the action plans submitted by the principals. These plans included reflections on the information presented and their comments on the responsibilities and actions taken to execute their Building Change Initiatives and other goals. The other procedure was the post interviews of the principals. Interviews were focused on determining: the effect of the academy sessions on their approaches to the change initiatives in their schools; the effect on the culture, practices, and operation of the schools; the impact of their execution of their plans on student achievement; and the perception of the staff regarding the changes as first and second order.

Summarized in the chart are the major findings from both sources. The focus of the action plan and of the interview was not identical so some results are evident from only one source. The chart below (Table 4) indicates the common areas from both sources and also those areas for each source that had a high frequency of responses.

Table 4

Principals Leadership Academy “Frequency of Application”

Impacted AreaAction Plan

(N=28)Interviews (N=7)

Total (N=35)

Monitoring and Evaluation enhanced 28 5 33Change Initiative was of the 2nd order 28 4 32Involvement with Curriculum and Instruction

22 NA

Communication enhanced 16 4 20Increased student achievement 15 5 20Knowledge of Curriculum and Instruction 20 NAFocus 20 NACulture 19 NAMore Aware of my Role in Change NA 6


21 Responsibilities Guided Change NA 5

Major Findings from the Action Plan Analysis

Participants seemed to understand the magnitude of change related to their initiative. Of the top ten rank ordered responsibilities related to first order change, the participants responded with a high frequency to seven of the ten items. Of the seven rank ordered responsibilities related to second order change, five of the seven were mentioned at a high frequency. Participants who included complete reflections, with detail and depth, had higher gains in reading and math on standardized measures than those who did not reflect in detail.

Major Findings from the Interviews

Nearly all participants indicated a greater awareness of their role in the change process and over half felt that their knowledge of the change process and the Balanced Leadership 21 responsibilities helped guide the change process (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Participants indicated that there was an increase in the utilization of artifacts and data and increased staff responsibilities and leadership. Enhanced school culture and communication was also cited. Student achievement in reading and math, as measured by standardized tests, increased in five of the seven schools represented in the final interview group. Over half of the respondents indicated that their staff initially perceived the change as first order, but as they became more involved with the initiative they indicated that it was a second order change. Areas reinforced from both the Action Plans and the interviews included: monitoring and evaluation processes were enhanced, the change initiative was of the 2nd order, communication


was enhanced, and (based on standardized test results) there was increased student achievement..

Annual Yearly Progress

The research team tracked the performance of participants’ schools Annual Yearly Progress results (measure of the percentage of students that meet or exceed state performance requirements) in reading and math over the two years of the training. Those participants who were in attendance for the two years of sessions, both presentations and job embedded, are included in the data. There were small gains for the group as a whole. However, further analysis of the AYP results of participants who submitted detailed action plans, with specific timelines and frequent reflections, scored even higher gains as reflected in Table 5.

Table 5

Principals Leadership Academy – AYP % Gain 05-07 Meet or Exceed. (N= 38)

Content Areas All Plan/ Reflection1. Reading +2.77 +7.665

2. Math +2.42 +5.066

Follow-up interviews with five selected high performing principals in elementary (urban, rural and suburban), middle level and high school buildings revealed even more interesting insights into the factors of improvement sited in other parts of this article. Consistent reflection, attention to detail in planning, purposeful application of the research presented in the PLA and sensitivity to the needs of faculty


experiencing first and second order change were hallmarks of the most successful participants. In addition, the “high fliers” also had established and well functioning teacher leadership teams. These teams took on a variety of functions depending on the building, but all of them had responsibility for data disaggregation and responding to results with effective interventions and professional development for the faculties. These five buildings had average AYP gains (Meet or Exceed) in reading of 7.6 percentage points and 8.4 percentage points in math. There is clear evidence that the application of the Iowa Professional Development Model principles and practices in conducting building site professional development was an important contributor to the success in improving AYP performance.

The combination of high quality workshop presentations with “job embedded” application is an effective design for providing professional development for principals. This design incorporates the research driven principles of the Iowa Professional Development Model. This group of principals had the opportunity to learn the theory presented in MCREL’s Balanced Leadership and Reeves’ The Learning Leader. The demonstration of the practices took place in the workshops with the expert providers and within the job embedded sessions provided in districts or at the agency. The participants’ practice of the research to enhance student achievement was monitored by the design team through participant action plans and the participant driven application sessions. Finally, the critical element of coaching occurred in formal and informal collaboration within the participant groups and with the design team members.


REFERENCES

Educational Research Service (1999). Professional development for school principals. The Informed Educator Series (WS-0350). Arlington, VA.

Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

National Association for Elementary School Principals. (2001). Leading learning communities: Standards for what principals should know and be able to do. Alexandria, VA: Author.

National Staff Development Council. (2001). National staff development standards. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader. Alexandra, VA: ASCD.Tate, M. (2004). “Sit and Get” won’t grow dendrites: 20 professional

development learning strategies that engage the adult brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Waters, T., McNulty, B., Grubb, S., & Cameron, G. (2005). Balanced leadership: School leadership that works. MCREL Participant Manual. (Available from McREL), 4601 DTE Blvd. Suite 500, Denver, CO 8023.

http://www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm

National FORUM Journals, Editor, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

Education

Transcript of National FORUM Journals, Editor, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis