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, lc-kilmer@wiu.eduBridget Sheng, zb-sheng@wiu.eduStuart Yager, so-yager@wiu.eduLora Wolff, ll-wolff@wiu.edu

Lloyd Bridget LoraStuart

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”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 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 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 improvement

Two major areasManagement Instructional Leadership

FrequencyQuality

MeasurementAgreement of improvement: SD, D, A, SA

(strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)

Extent of improvement: none, a little, moderate, a lot

16

SAM SurveyManagement

Support staff efficiencyBuilding managementStudent supervisionDiscipline ManagementFacilitation of school Improvement

processes

Instructional LeadershipFrequencyQuality

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 development

Frequency

Quality – additional two itemsImplementing 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--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

27

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

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 late

Being a SAM is “extremely rewarding”

Gaining skills to be an effective administrator

29

Closing RemarksSAM 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

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 (ll-wolff@wiu.edu)

31

Questions…….Comments

32

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

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