1

SEC Summer ConferenceMilwaukee

September 8-10, 2008

Idaho’sPRINCIPAL ACADEMY

ofLEADERSHIP and the SEC

Curt Rathburn, Project ManagerScott Smith, State Science Supervisor

2

• Started January, 2006• Three year initiative with ongoing

support• Partnership between Dept of Ed,

State Board, and Winston-Salem Systemic Services

• 19 middle school principals

PRINCIPAL ACADEMYof

LEADERSHIP

3

Project Areas of Focus

• Leadership• Communication• Data Analysis• Student Achievement• Working Conditions• Strategic Planning and Visioning

4

Project Tools

• Face-to-face meetings• School visits• Monthly coaching calls• Surveys of the Enacted Curriculum• Instructional Reviews• Seminars• Working Conditions Report

5

Surveys of Enacted Curriculum

Math ELA Science

2006 183 256

2007 120 157 81

2008 83 108 57

6

• First, why principals?• Given overview of the SEC early in

the project• Establishing the right groups• Principals and other leaders take a

survey• Training on how to administer the

survey

How principals are trained in the SEC…

7

• Review the survey results• Training on how to analyze the

data• Training on how to use the results

with their staff• How to respond to the difficult

questions• Another year of surveys

How principals are trained in the SEC…

8

• Training on the use of the website…how to create their own displays

• How to handle continuing discussions with their staff

How principals are trained in the SEC…

9

10

11

• Observed 828 classrooms in 2006, 525 classrooms in 2007 and 462 in 2008.

• Five key areas: What is the objective?What is the teacher doing?What are the students doing? Is learning being assessed?What is the overall quality of the

lesson?

Instructional Reviews

12

• Assess the effectiveness of current professional development activities

• Inform future professional development

• Used by principals to improve classroom instruction

Instructional Reviews, cont’d

13

Following is part of a report and presentation given to principals and state department administrators on the results of Instructional Reviews in schools participating in the Principal Academy of Leadership the past three years.

14

Idaho’sPRINCIPAL ACADEMY

ofLEADERSHIP

Instructional Reviews

Boise, IdahoJune 13, 2008

15

Idaho Instructional ReviewI. The objective of the lesson was... Stated or implied

Aligned with state standardsClear to students

Total Group

Note: 462 classrooms

63%67%

74%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Spring 06 Spring 07 Spring 08 08-09

Per

cen

t P

osi

tive

Res

po

nse

s

16

Idaho Instructional ReviewI. The objective of the lesson was... Stated or implied

Aligned with state standardsClear to students

Individual School

Note: 462 classrooms

56% 54%

45%

73%

61%

54%

89%

66%

100%

71%

61%

76%

60%64%

70%

96%

63%

69%

52%

88%

31%

71%76%

64%

87%

71%

91%

76%

87%

65%

88%

62% 61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A B C D E F G H I J K M N

Per

cen

t P

osi

tive

Res

po

nse

s

Spring 06 Spring 07 Spring 08 Avg Spring 06 Avg Spring 07 Avg Spring 08

17

Idaho Instructional ReviewII. Relative to the lesson objective, the teacher was...

Facilitating a standards-based lesson

Total Group

Note: 462 classrooms

50%

61%

69%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Spring 06 Spring 07 Spring 08 08-09

Per

cen

t P

osi

tive

Res

po

nse

s

18

Idaho Instructional ReviewIII. Level of student engagement in activities appropriate to the lesson:

All students were engaged

Total Group

Note: 462 classrooms

48%52%

55%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Spring 06 Spring 07 Spring 08 08-09

Per

cen

t P

osi

tive

Res

po

nse

s

19

Idaho Instructional ReviewIVA. The teacher assessed the learning of the current objective for:

All students

Total Group

Note: 462 classrooms

42%

53%

59%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Spring 06 Spring 07 Spring 08 08-09

Per

cen

t P

osi

tive

Res

po

nse

s

20

Idaho Instructional ReviewIVB. The teacher’s assessment included:

Higher order questioning of all students

Total Group

Note: 462 classrooms

10%

22%27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Spring 06 Spring 07 Spring 08 08-09

Per

cen

t P

osi

tive

Res

po

nse

s

21

Idaho Instructional ReviewVA. Rate the overall effectiveness of the lesson:

Excellent

Total Group

Note: 462 classrooms

26%

36%

47%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Spring 06 Spring 07 Spring 08 08-09

Per

cen

t P

osi

tive

Res

po

nse

s

22

Idaho Instructional ReviewProfessional Development

Total Group

Note: 462 classrooms

32%

54%

34%

25%

10%

54%

43%

36%

27%

12%

21% 21%

9%

2%

35%

22% 22%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

ResultsBasedModel

Comp Lit PositiveBehavior

AssessmentLiteracy

TOBI LearningStyles

SIOP MakingMiddleWork

CulturalSensivity

Nu

mb

er o

f C

lass

roo

ms

Ob

serv

ed

Spring 08 Present Spring 08 High Impact Spring 07 Present Spring 07 High Impact

23

Idaho Instructional ReviewI. The objective of the lesson was... Stated or implied

Aligned with state standardsClear to students

Total Group

Note: 462 classrooms

70% 71%74%

59%

67%

76%

68%64%

69%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Spring 06 Spring 07 Spring 08 08-09

Per

cen

t P

osi

tive

Res

po

nse

s

Math LA/Reading Science

24

Idaho Instructional ReviewImpact of Training Programs

Total Group

Note: 462 classrooms

Results Based Model

78%68%

58%66%

28%

48%

72% 69%

54% 56%

26%

47%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

I. Objective II. Standards-based III. Engagement IVA. Assessment VA. High orderquestioning

VI. Overalleffectiveness

Comprehensive Literacy Course

78%71%

56%66%

32%

51%

70% 66%54% 51%

21%

43%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

I. Objective II. Standards-based III. Engagement IVA. Assessment VA. High orderquestioning

VI. Overalleffectiveness

Spring 08 Teacher Trained Spring 08 Teacher Not Trained

25

Some results…

• All of the 19 schools either made AYP or reduced the number of indicators not met

• At least 9 of the schools made AYP• 5 out of 19 principals were promoted to

district or state level positions

26

Some comments…

“2006 was a difficult year for me. I told Curt and Stan not to schedule their school visit because I didn’t think I was going back. But then my whole outlook got turned around at a regional PAL meeting. If not for PALs I am convinced I would be in a different profession today”

Jeff Bengtson Canfield Middle School

27

Some comments…

“Three years ago I had nothing! Now I have data, strategies, collaboration at my school and improved student achievement. We have become the district’s showcase school. Every school in my district wants to be part of the next PAL.”

Lyndon Oswald Sandcreek Middle School

28

Some comments…

“We made AYP. Yes!”Gary GoPriest River Junior High

29

Some comments…

“I can’t believe I am receiving this award. I owe it all to my staff and my fellow PAL principals, Jeff, Rene, JoAnne, Gary, Bill and Tony.”

Shannon Wilson Orafino Junior High (on being selected as Idaho’s Middle Level

Educator of the Year)

30

Next steps in Idaho…

• PAL I ended June 2008. One year sustainability plan began July 1.

• PAL II began July 1 with 30 schools.• Caldwell Academy of Leadership began

in January with 14 schools.• Coeur d’Alene Academy of Leadership

began July 1 with 18 schools.

31

Contact info

Curt RathburnCrathburn @ triad.rr.com

336-408-1651