National FORUM Journals, Editor, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

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

MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF ANNUAL
YEARLY PROGRESS: A PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT SERIES
Lloyd C. Kilmer
Dean L. Halverson
Western Illinois University

Georgianna L. Koenig
Mississippi 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).

T 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

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)

Very Fairly Not very Not Not
true true for true for true for sure
The PLA Series: for me me me me at
all
1. Had clear goals. 39.80 28.30 001.89 0.00 0.0
0
2. Had clear expectations of 47.17 45.28 005.66 0.00 0.0
results. 0
3. Used content aligned with 39.62 50.94 007.55 0.00 0.0
participants’ needs. 0
4. Used a variety of strategies, 47.17 41.51 11.32 0.00 0.0
delivery systems, models 0
and techniques to meet the
needs of participants.
5. Included content and best 86.79 11.32 00.00 1.89 0.0
practice based on research. 0
6. Provided follow-up. 43.40 37.74 11.32 1.89 3.7
7
7. Provided opportunities for 41.51 41.51 13.21 1.89 0.0
participants to practice 0
skills.
8. Modeled mutual respect 79.25 20.75 00.00 0.00 0.0


and collaboration. 0
(Table 1 continues)
(Table 1 continued)
Very Fairly Not Not Not
true for true for very true for sure
The PLA Series: me me true for me at
me all
9. Used data results to drive 45.28 39.62 07.55 0.00 5.6
on-going planning cycle. 6
10. Expected demonstrated 35.85 52.83 05.66 0.00 1.8
links to improvement of 9
teaching and learning as an
end product.
11. Increased my 67.92 22.64 05.66 0.00 3.7
understanding of leadership 7
responsibilities that result
in improved learning for
all.
12. a. Improved my 54.72 37.74 05.66 0.00 1.8
understanding and ability 9
to create a purposeful
community.
13. b. Improved 54.72 39.62 05.66 0.00 0.0
understanding and ability 0
to manage change within
the community.
14. Provided an opportunity 56.60 35.85 05.66 0.00 1.8
for me to review and 9
reflect on processes and
strategies that are effective
in improving student
achievement.
15. Increased knowledge base 58.49 39.62 00.00 0.00 0.0
through interactions and 0
problem solving with my
colleagues.

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)

Very Fairly Not Not
true true for very true for Not
The PLA Series: for me me true for me at sure
me all
1. Had clear goals. 89.5 10.5 00.0 0.0 0.0
2. Had clear expectations of 76.3 23.7 00.0 0.0 0.0
results.
3. Used content aligned with 65.8 31.6 02.6 0.0 0.0
participants’ needs.
4. Used a variety of strategies, 60.5 36.8 00.0 2.6 0.0
delivery systems, models and
techniques to meet the needs
of participants.
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)
Very Fairly Not Not
true true for very true for Not
The PLA Series: for me me true for me at sure
me all
7. Modeled mutual respect and 94.7 05.3 00.0 0.0 0.0
collaboration.
8. Collected data on an ongoing 68.4 31.6 00.0 0.0 0.0
basis regarding content and
delivery.
9. Used data results to drive on- 73.7 23.7 00.0 0.0 2.6
going planning cycle.
10. Expected demonstrated links 68.4 29.0 00.0 0.0 2.6
to improvement of teaching
and learning as an end
product.
11. Increased my understanding 89.5 10.5 00.0 0.0 0.0
of leadership responsibilities
that result in improved
learning for all.
12. a. Improved my 79.0 18.4 02.6 0.0 0.0
understanding and ability to
select the right work.
13. b. Improved my 83.8 16.2 00.0 0.0 0.0
understanding and ability to
change my leadership
behaviors to improve
teaching and learning.
14. Provided an opportunity to 86.6 10.5 02.9 0.0 0.0
review and reflect
improvement strategies.
15. Increased my knowledge 84.2 15.8 00.0 0.0 0.0
base – interaction and
problem solving.

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 Strongly Strongly No
Statement: agree Agree Disagre Disagre Response
e e
1. The value in BL 30.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
research was reinforced.
2. The facilitator provided 40.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
new tools for leadership.
3. The PD positively 30.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
affected practice.
4. The monthly meeting 50.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
enhanced collaboration
in group.
5. The facilitator responded 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
to the group’s needs.
6. The RI Cabinet 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
supported me in my
professional
development.
7. I was able to distribute 10.0 90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
leadership.
8. I expanded my 22.2 77.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
professional
network through PLA.

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”

Action Plan Interviews Total
Impacted Area (N=28) (N=7) (N=35)
Monitoring and Evaluation enhanced 28 5 33
Change Initiative was of the 2nd order 28 4 32
Involvement with Curriculum and 22 NA
Instruction
Communication enhanced 16 4 20
Increased student achievement 15 5 20
Knowledge of Curriculum and Instruction 20 NA
Focus 20 NA
Culture 19 NA
More 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/ Reflection
1. 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.

National FORUM Journals, Editor, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie National FORUM Journals, Editor, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

Ähnlich wie National FORUM Journals, Editor, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis (20)

Mehr von guestfa49ec

Mehr von guestfa49ec (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

National FORUM Journals, Editor, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis