0.6 Walker, j. (february 2009). superheroes or sams? a change in  (Page 6/7)

Most of the principals (67%) hoped to gain increased student performance with the continued involvement in the SAMs project. Others indicated (43%) greater time in the areas of planning, curriculum, instruction and assessment and professional development. One administrator responded:

To create a culture of continued adult growth helps enhance the learning experiences that each student receives at our school. This improvement creates a learning community where all students experience success and growth while feeling connected to our school.

Looking to the future with sams

Results of the project have been favorable, and reactions from students, teachers, parents and administrators have been positive. In the second year, data collectors will shadow the principals to gather comparison data to the baseline data. Academic gains will be reviewed using Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and Iowa Test for Educational Development (ITED) scores. The programs, however, will have been in operation for only a year and little may be derived from this early analysis. The initial reaction has been a selling point for other districts; the number of principal/SAM teams is growing with the potential to reach 25 teams at the end of the 2008-2009 school year.

In addition, the Wallace Foundation has contracted with Policy Studies Associates (PSA) to study the impact of implementation across the country. The PSA’s report will be issued in June, 2009, and will be a useful tool for Iowa and other participating states as they assess their progress and look to the future.

Conclusions

The job of the school leader demands restructuring. Rather than continuing with the “superhero” image that is clearly unrealistic, the school leader structure needs to change. Typical responses to the need for change have included either a focus on recruitment of strong leaders capable of magically balancing myriad tasks or demanding preparation programs prepare the candidates for jobs that are becoming impossible (Grubb&Flessa, 2006). Such recommendations ignore the real problem and divert the discussion from the possibility of restructuring the principal’s practice.

Ultimately, boards of education must be convinced of the importance of restructuring balanced against its potential costs. They must reexamine the responsibilities of the principal, narrow the focus of the role, and encourage the school leader to abandon managerial tasks. Incorporating the SAM process may mean the principal will have more time to spend on curriculum, more time for quality communication and less time spent on paper work; it might well improve student achievement. Although the results of this new structural relationship are pending further exploration and research, principals can change the use of their time; time is not a barrier to quality instructional leadership.

References

Bush, T. (2008). From management to leadership: Semantic or meaningful change? Educational Management Administration&Leadership 36, 271-288.

Chirichello, M. (2003). Co-principals: A double dose of leadership. Principal, 82(4), 40-44.