TableofContentsCover-PageTitleSeriesContentsSchoolAdministrationManager:RedefiningthePrincipal’sRoleasanInstructionalLeader

JOURNALOFSCHOOL

LEADERSHIP

EDITORIALPOLICYTheJournal of School Leadership invites the submission ofmanuscripts that contribute to the exchange of ideas and scholarship aboutschoolsandleadership.Alltheoreticalandmethodologicalapproachesarewelcome.Wedonotadvocateorpracticeabiastowardanymodeof inquiry (e.g., qualitative vs. quantitative, empirical vs. conceptual, discipline based vs. interdisciplinary) and instead operate from theassumptionthatallcarefulandmethodologicallysoundresearchhavethepotentialtocontributetoourunderstandingofschoolleadership.Westronglyencourageauthors toconsiderboth the localand theglobal implicationsof theirwork.The journal’sgoal is toclearlycommunicatewithadiverseaudience,includingschool-anduniversity-basededucators.Thejournalembracesabroadconceptionofschoolleadershipandwelcomesmanuscriptsthatreflectthediversityofwaysinwhichthistermisunderstood.Thejournalisinterestednotonlyinmanuscriptsthatfocus on administrative leadership in schools and school districts but also in manuscripts that inquire about teacher, student, parent, andcommunityleadership.Additionally,thejournalisinterestedinmanuscriptsthatexploretherelationshipbetweenleadershipand

• teaching,curriculum,andinstruction• studentlearning,development,andachievement• whole-schoolrenewalandchange• equity,justice,spirituality,andothermoralandethicalissues• socialandculturalcontextsofschooling• individualandinstitutionalaccountability• diversitywithrespecttorace,class,gender,genderidentity,sexualorientation,ethnicity,andlearningstyles• law,finance,andpersonnelissuesineducation• educationalpolicyandpolitics• thepre-servicepreparationandin-serviceprofessionaldevelopmentofeducationalleaders• internationalandcomparativedynamicsandissues• globalization• librariesandinformationtechnologyTheJournalofSchoolLeadershipisincludedinthefollowingindexingandabstractingservices:

• AcademicAbstracts• CurrentIndextoJournalsinEducation• EducationalAdministrationAbstracts• EducationResourcesInformationCenter(ERIC)

PERMISSIONTOPHOTOCOPY—POLICYSTATEMENTForcopyingrightstothearticleswithinthisjournal,beyondthosepermittedbySections107and108oftheU.S.CopyrightLaw,pleasecontacttheCopyrightClearanceCenter,Inc.,222RosewoodDrive,Danvers,MA01923,orbye-mailatinfo@copyright.com.

JOURNALOFSCHOOLLEADERSHIP(ISSN1052-684263)—Publishedbimonthly—January,March,May,July,September,andNovember,onevolumeperyear,byRowman&Littlefield,4501ForbesBoulevard,Suite200,Lanham,MD20706.PostagepaidatBlueRidgeSummit,PA17214.POSTMASTER:PleasesendaddresschangetoJournalofSchoolLeadership,SubscriptionProcessingCenter,4501ForbesBoulevard,Suite200,Lanham,MD20706.Calltoll-free:800-273-2223E-mail:journals@rowman.comForbackissues,pleasecontactjournals@rowman.com

Subscriptions:• Annualindividualrate$95,$205peryearforinstitutions.• Non-U.S.subscriptions,add$60peryearforpostage.• Singlecopyprice$40domestic/$48international.Copyright©2016byRowman&Littlefield.AllRightsReserved.AllRowman&Littlefieldjournalsareprintedonacid-freepaper.

CONTENTS

HowContextsMatter:AFrameworkforUnderstandingtheRoleofContextsinEquity-FocusedEducationalLeadershipRachelRoegman

TheRoleofDistrictandSchoolLeaders’TrustandCommunicationsintheSimultaneousImplementationofInnovativePoliciesHalA.Lawson,FrancescaT.Durand,KristenCampbellWilcox,KarenM.Gregory,KathrynS.Schiller,andSarahJ.Zuckerman

Defining“Comparable”:AnAnalysisofReductioninForceProvisionsinOhioSchoolDistrictsW.KyleIngle,ChrisWillis,andAnnHerd

EmpathyRegulationAmongIsraeliSchoolPrincipals:ExpressionandSuppressionofMajorEmotionsinEducationalLeadershipIzharOplatka

SchoolAdministrationManager:RedefiningthePrincipal’sRoleasanInstructionalLeaderZhaohuiSheng,LoraWolff,LloydKilmer,andStuartYager

EDITOR

GaëtaneJean-Marie,PhDUniversityofNorthernIowaCollegeofEducation150SchindlerEducationCenter8120JenningsDriveCedarFalls,IA50614-0610E-mail:jsl@uni.eduOffice:319.273.2717Fax:319.273.2607

ASSOCIATEEDITORS

CurtM.Adams,PhDUniversityofOklahoma

BradleyW.Carpenter,PhDUniversityofHouston

SonyaDouglassHorsford,EdDTeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity

DeniseS.Schares,EdDUniversityofNorthernIowa

NatalieA.Tran,PhDCaliforniaStateUniversity,Fullerton

ASSISTANTEDITOR

MichelleCookUniversityofNorthernIowa

MANAGINGEDITOR

CarlieWallAssociateEditorRowman&Littlefield

PRODUCTIONEDITOR

AshleighCookeAssociateEditorRowman&Littlefield

Rowman & Littlefield appreciates the University of Louisville College of Education and HumanDevelopmentfortheirsupportandassistanceintheproductionoftheJournalofSchoolLeadership.

EDITORIALREVIEWBOARDTawannahAllenHighPointUniversity

ThomasAlsburySeattlePacificUniversity,USA

WilliamBlackUniversityofSouthFlorida,USA

JeffreyS.BrooksMonashUniversity,Australia

MelanieC.BrooksUniversityofIdaho,USA

AlanDalyUniversityofCalifornia,SanDiego,USA

GlennDeVoogdCaliforniaStateUniversity,DominguezHills

BillFrickUniversityofOklahoma

DonaldG.HackmannUniversityofIllinoisatUrbana–Champaign,USA

RaphaelC.HeaggansNiagaraUniversity,USA

KristinaHesbolUniversityofDenver,USA

JasonImmekusUniversityofLouisville,USA

W.KyleIngleUniversityofLouisville,USA

LisaA.W.KenslerAuburnUniversity,USA

MoosungLeeUniversityofCanberra,Australia

CatherineA.LuggRutgersUniversity,USA

RoxanneMitchellUniversityofAlabama,USA

ElizabethMurakamiTexasA&MUniversity-SanAntonio,USA

AnthonyNormore

CaliforniaStateUniversity,DominguezHills,USA

BernardOliverUniversityofFlorida,USA

IzharOplatkaTelAvivUniversity,Israel

AzadehOsanlooNewMexicoStateUniversity,USA

CraigPeckUniversityofNorthCarolinaatGreensboro,USA

AugustinaReyesUniversityofHouston,USA

ChenSchechterBar-IlanUniversity,Israel

JayScribnerOldDominionUniversity,USA

JulieSlaytonUniversityofSouthernCalifornia,RossierSchoolofEducation,USA

EkkarinSungtongPrinceofSongklaUniversity,PattaniCampus,Thailand

GeorgeTheoharisSyracuseUniversity,USA

MarioTorresTexasA&MUniversity,CollegeStation,USA

AllanWalkerHongKongInstituteofEducation,HongKong

DeborahL.WestEasternKentuckyUniversity,USA

PhilipWoodsUniversityofHertfordshire,UK

ZHAOHUISHENGLORAWOLFFLLOYDKILMERSTUARTYAGER

SchoolAdministrationManager

RedefiningthePrincipal’sRoleasanInstructionalLeader

ABSTRACT:Inresponsetoanincreasingemphasisoninstructionalleadershipandschoolachievement, theSchoolAdministrationManager(SAM)modelwasintroducedasachangestrategytoreleaseprincipalsfrommanagerialresponsibilitiessothatmoretimecanbedevotedtoinstructionalleadership.ThestudycollectedandanalyzedsurveyandfocusgroupinterviewdatatoevaluatetheimpactofSAMsonprincipals’managementandinstructional leadership.Inaddition, thestudyexaminedifschool level(elementaryormiddleschool)affects the impactofSAMs.ResultsillustrateSAMshaveapositiveimpactonmanagementandinstructionalleadershipandtheimpactwasstrongeratthemiddleschoollevel.

KEYWORDS:InstructionalLeadership,SchoolAdministration,SchoolLeadership,SchoolLevel,MixedMethods

INTRODUCTION

Withthepressuresanddemandsplacedonschoolsandschooldistrictstoensurestudentsachieveatthehighestlevelspossible,itisnowonderschoolsarefocusingontheprincipalservingasaninstructionalleader. However, with the daily demands placed on the building principal, finding time to focus oninstructionalleadershipisachallenge.Oneideatoprovideprincipalsthetimetobeinstructionalleadersis through a SchoolAdministrationManager (SAM).A SAM is an individual put in place to take onmanagerialduties(e.g.,lunchroomduty,bussupervision,orcreatingthemasterschedule)usuallyinthepurview of the principal. The SAM position is designed to change the role of principal from apredominatelymanagerialleadertoaninstructionalleader(SchoolAdministratorsofIowa,n.d.).IntheSAMmodel,SAMshelpprincipals:(1)increasethetimetheyspendasinstructionalleaders,(2)use time and task data to reflect on their practice, (3) strengthen relationships with teachers, and (4)distribute management responsibilities and tasks to classified and support staff to keep routinemanagementworkfrompullingtheprincipalawayfrominstructionalleadership(SchoolAdministratorsof Iowa, n.d.). The SAM Project began in Louisville (KY) in 2002 as an “Alternative SchoolAdministrationStudy”thatexaminedtheuseofprincipals’time.TheinitialstudyexamineddifferencesinprincipaltimeuseandfoundthattheprincipalsinschoolsthatadoptedtheSAMmodelspentmorethan70%oftheirtimeoninstructionalissues(Shellinger,2005).ThisstudyevaluatestheimpactofSAMsonprincipals’managementandinstructionalleadership.

INSTRUCTIONALLEADERSHIP

Effective principal leadership is essential to school improvement.Among the school-level factors thatinfluencestudentsuccess,principalleadershipissecondonlytoclassroomteachers(Leithwood,Louis,Anderson,&Wahlstrom, 2004).Ameta-analysis conducted byWaters,Marzano, andMcNulty (2003)examinedeffective leadershippracticesand their relationship to student learning.Their study revealedthat increasing principal leadership effectiveness by one standard deviation would result in a 10-percentilepointgaininstudentachievement.Researchoneffectiveschoolsemphasizestheimportanceoftheprincipalasaninstructionalleaderincreatingandleadingapositivelearningenvironment(Spillane,

Halverson, & Diamond, 2004; Wenglinsky, 2002). Hallinger (2011) reviewed over three decades ofleadership research and his review provided empirical support for the essential role of principalinstructional leadership in improving schools and student learning. In a subsequent article written byHallingerandMurphy(2013),theauthorsstatedthatthereis“substantialconsensusoftheimportanceofinstructionalleadershipineffortstoraiseandsustainthequalityofteachingandlearninginschools”(p.7),furtheremphasizingtheroleoftheprincipalasaninstructionalleader.Researchon instructional leadershiporiginatedfromthe1970s instudiesofeffectiveschools inpoorurban schools (Edmonds, 1979). Since then, the field has moved from the early studies on principalcharacteristicsineffectiveschoolstostudiesonprincipalbehaviorsandactionsthatrelatepositivelytoschool improvement (Neumerski, 2013). Although researchers may define instructional leadershipdifferently, there is ageneralunderstandingofwhatan instructional leaderdoesand the importanceofinstructionalleadershipinleadingschools(Hallinger&Heck,1998;Hallinger&Murphy,2013;Hattie,2009; Neumerski, 2013). Principals have both direct and indirect effects on school improvement andstudentlearning.Principalscaninfluencestudentlearningdirectlybyconductingregularclassroomvisits,providingconstructivefeedbacktoteachers,andmaintainingongoingcommunicationswithteachersaboutinstructional issues (Hallinger & Heck, 1998, 2010; Nettles & Herrington, 2007). Principals alsoinfluence student learning indirectly by providing support for instruction and learning, implementingprofessional development, and fostering a school culture conducive to learning (Leithwood & Jantzi,2008; Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010; Witziers et al., 2003). Studies suggest that the effects ofprincipalleadershipareachievedprimarilythroughtheprincipal’sinfluenceonteachers,classroomandschoolconditions,andschoolculture(Halllinger,2011;Hallinger&Heck,2010;Neumerski,2013).Ameta-analysis conducted by Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe (2008) analyzed empirical studies publishedbetween1978and2006thatexaminedinstructionalleadershipandstudentachievementandfoundthattheeffectsofprincipalinstructionalleadershiponstudentoutcomeswerenotonlystatisticallysignificantbutalsomoderatetolargeineffectsize.Despite strong empirical support of the importance of the principal as an instructional leader topositively influence school improvement and student learning (Hallinger, 2011; Hallinger & Murphy,2013;Hattie,2009;Neumerski,2013),focusingoninstructionalleadershipcontinuestobeachallengeforprincipals, given the amount of time they have to spend on day-to-day building management. Severalstudies have documented that principals spent only a small portion of their time on instructionalleadershipactivities(Grissom,Loeb,&Master,2013;Horng,Klasik,&Loeb,2010;May&Supovitz,2011;May,Huff,&Goldring,2012;Spillaneetal.,2007).Usingdailylogsofprincipalactivitiesorin-personobservationsofhowprincipalsspentaschoolday,thesestudiesuncoveredthatprincipalsspentonaveragelessthan10%toabout20%oftheirtimeoninstructionalleadershipactivities.Thetimeusedata from Grissom et al. (2013) and Horng et al. (2010) showed that the time principals spent oninstruction-relatedactivitieswaslessinmiddleschoolsandevenlessinhighschools.However,mostofthe studies onprincipal timeuse did not establish a linkbetween the overall timeprincipals spent oninstructional activities and school effectiveness, but they did find specific instructional leadershipactivities such as time spent on professional development, evaluation of teachers and curriculum,providingteacherswithfeedbackandcoaching,didpositivelyinfluenceschooleffectiveness.School context plays an important role in studying and understanding the presence and influence ofinstructional leadership (Hallinger, 2011;May& Supovitz, 2011;Neumerski, 2013). In this study,wechose to examine how school level (elementary schools vs. middle schools) relates to instructionalleadership.While research in thisareahasbeen limited,existingstudieshave foundmoreevidenceofinstructional leadership that has been observed at elementary schools than at middle or high schools

(Leithwood et al., 2004; Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010). Recent studies havedocumented that elementary school teachers more often report their principals were engaged ininstructionalpracticeswhilemiddleandhighschoolteachersrarelyreporttheirprincipalstakingtheroleof an instructional leader (Grigsby, Schumacher, Decman, & Simieou, 2010; Wahlstrom, 2012). Thevaryingpresenceofinstructionalleadershipmaybeduetodifferencesinorganizationalstructures(Louiset al., 2010). Middle and high schools operate more like a complex organization withdepartmentalization,alargernumberofstaffmembers,andalargerstudentbody(Firestone&Harriott,1982; Hallinger, 2012). The complexity in organizational structure could imply more and layeredmanagerialresponsibilitiesformiddleandhighschoolprincipalsmakingitlesslikelyforthemtoenactinstructionalleadership.Moreover,nationalandinternationalassessmentdataillustratethattheneedforinstructionalleadershipcan bemore pronounced at themiddle and high school levels.Middle schools and high schools havelowerlevelsofacademicperformanceasevidencedbythenation’sreportcard,NationalAssessmentofEducationalProgress(NAEP).DatafromtheinternationalassessmentssuchasProgramforInternationalStudent Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study show thatAmericansecondaryschoolsdonotcomparefavorablywithschoolsinothercountries.TheU.S.fourth-graderssignificantlyoutscoredothercountries inreadingandscoredabovetheinternationalaverageinmath,butbyhighschool,thereadingadvantagehasdiminishedandthemathperformancefallsbelowtheinternationalaverage(Hull,2007).Inaddition,basedonaHarvardreportonachievementgrowthinU.S.schools,overthepasttwodecades,minimalgainshavebeenobservedforstudentsinsecondaryschools(Hanushek,Peterson,&Woessmann,2012).The focus of the SAM model is to develop instructional leadership and provide principals theopportunity to be instructional leaders.The existing literature on instructional leadership coupledwithnationalandinternationalassessmentdatasuggestthatthereisresearchvalueandpracticalsignificanceinstudying the SAM model to determine if and how it influences principal leadership in varyingorganizationalcontexts.

THESAMMODEL

TheinitialdevelopmentoftheSAMmodelwassupportedandfundedbytheWallaceFoundationaspartof its initiative in educational leadership.TheSAMmodelwaspiloted in three schools inLouisville,Kentucky, in 2002.The initialworkon theSAM implementation foundpromising results in increasingprincipal’stimeoninstructionalissues(Shellinger,2005).TheSAMmodeliscurrentlyinplaceinmorethan700schoolsin21statesintheUnitedStates(NationalSAMInnovationProject,n.d.).For districts that are interested in adopting the SAM model, there are three typical implementationoptions(ormodels)accordingtothereport“ImplementationoftheNationalSAMInnovationProject:AComparison of Project Designs,” written for the Wallace Foundation (Turnbull, Arcaira, & Sinclair,2011).Thefirstmodelinvolvesaddinganewposition,aSAMposition,tothebuildingorredesigninganexistingpositionintotheSAMposition(Model1).TheothertwomodelsassignSAMresponsibilitiestoanexistingpositionwith(Model2)orwithoutadditionalcompensation(Model3).WithaModel1SAMimplementation,anew(orreassigned)staffmemberisexpectedtodevoteallofhisorherworkingtimetoSAMresponsibilities includingmeetingwith theprincipaleachday,keeping trackof theprincipal’suseoftimeusingspecialtimemanagingsoftware,andhandlingschoolmanagementtasks.InModel2andModel3implementationoptions,astaffmemberperformsSAMresponsibilitiesinadditiontohisorherexistingduties.ThemodelsaredepictedgraphicallyinFigure1.ThechartillustratesthattheSAMmodelwascreatedwiththepremisethatdelegatingmanagerialresponsibilitiestoothersallowstheprincipalto

focushisorhertimeoninstructionalleadershipandthereforeenhancesschoolimprovementandstudentlearning.ThedistrictthatparticipatedinthisstudyisamongtheearlyadoptersoftheSAMmodelinthestateofIowa.ThedistrictchosetoadopttheModel1implementationoptionfortheSAMpositions.ThisSAMmodel was utilized in 66% of SAM implementations between 2004 and 2010 (Turnbull, Arcaira, &Sinclair,2011).Theschooldistrictincludes17elementaryschools,4middleschools,and4highschools.Thedistrictservesadiversestudentpopulationofover15,000studentsincluding57%Caucasian,19%AfricanAmerican,14%Hispanic,8%multiracial,and2%Asianstudents.Atthetimeofthestudy,SAMSwereonly implementedat theelementaryandmiddleschools in thedistrict.ThedistrictadministrationwasverysupportiveoftheSAMimplementationaswasevidencedintheirdecisiontoparticipateintheSAMprocess.TheSchoolAdministratorsofIowa,throughfundingbytheWallaceFoundation,providedtheimplementationofSAMsatthedistrict.SupportwasprovidedfortheprincipalsandSAMsthroughinitialtraining,regularfollow-ups,andareviewoftheimplementation.

Figure1.GraphicrepresentationoftheSAMmodel.

SAMcandidatesinthedistrictschoolsmusteitherholdorbecompletingIowaprincipalcertification.Inaddition, to be recommended for the position, they must have held some type of leadershipresponsibilitiesasateacher.Themajorityofthecandidateshiredwereemployeeswithinthedistrict,butsomecamefromotherdistrictsinIowaandIllinois.SAMswereassignedtoschoolsatthediscretionofthesuperintendentwhoselectedthereceivingschoolsbasedontheirNoChildLeftBehind(NCLB)statusof notmeeting student achievement expectations for the appropriate proficiency levels inmath and/orreading.MostSAMsstayintheirpositionsfor1to3years.Alsoofnotewasthepracticeinthedistrictofpromoting SAMs who are successful in their positions to full-time assistant principal or principalpositionswithinthedistrict.

PURPOSEOFTHESTUDY

Thepurposeof this studywas to collect quantitative andqualitativedata todocument the influenceofSAMs on elementary and middle school principals’ management and instructional leadership. AnadditionalfocusofthestudyistoexploreiftheimpactofSAMsdiffersbetweenschoollevels.

METHODS

Thestudyutilizedamixed-methoddesign(Creswell,2014)relyinguponbothquantitativeandqualitativedata toevaluate theSAMimplementationinanumberofschools.Datacollectioninvolvedasurveyofteachers and focus group interviews of principals and SAMs at the SAM schools in an attempt to

triangulatedatatobetterunderstandtheSAMimpact.

SAMSURVEY

TheSAMsurvey(seeAppendixA)wasdevelopedbytheresearcherstoevaluatetheimpactofSAMsonprincipal management and instructional responsibilities. Principal management and instructionalresponsibilities included in the survey were informed by prior studies on instructional leadership(Hallinger,1990,2005)andbyTurnbull,Arcaira,andSinclair’s(2011)reportontheSAMproject.Thesurveycontainstwosetsofparallelitems.Thefirstsetofitemsmeasuresifrespondentsagreethattherehasbeenimprovementintheperformanceofvariousschoolmanagerialandinstructionalresponsibilities.Managerial responsibilities include building management, student supervision, managing discipline,supporting staff efficiency, and facilitationof the school improvementprocess. Instructional leadershipresponsibilities include feedback on teaching from informal and formal observations, administrativesupportforstudentacademicneeds,andjob-embeddedprofessionaldevelopmentforteachers.Responseoptionsforthesesurveyquestionsrangefrom“stronglydisagree”to“stronglyagree.”Thesecondsetofitems measures the extent of improvement in the surveyed management and instructional leadershipresponsibilities.Responseoptions for thesequestions range from“tono extent” to “to a great extent.”Initial survey questions were piloted with teachers in a school district with SAMs, but that was notparticipatinginthestudy.Minormodificationstothesurveyweremadebasedonfeedbackfromthepilot.Thefinalsurveycontains34itemswitheachsetconsistingof17items.Foreachset,fiveitemsmeasurethe SAM impact in managerial responsibilities and 12 items measure the impact in instructionalleadership.The12 items thatmeasure instructional leadershipwere furtherdivided into twoparts: (1)five itemsmeasuring perceived improvement in the frequency of the principal engaging in instruction-relatedactivities(frequencyof instructional leadership)and(2)seven itemsmeasuring improvement intheprincipal’sperformanceasaninstructionalleader(qualityofinstructionalleadership).

Participants

TheSAMsurveywasemailedtoteachersinaschooldistrictinIowaatschoolswhereSAMswerebeingimplemented.SinceSAMswerenotbeingimplementedatthehighschoollevelinthedistrictatthetimeof the research, no high school teachers were surveyed. Teachers in four middle schools and 11elementaryschoolsparticipatedinthestudyand333surveyswerereturned.Ofthosesurveyscollected,22 failed tocompleteover75% itemson the survey.These responseswere subsequentlydeleted fromfurtheranalysis.Thefinaldatasetcontained311usablesurveys.Ofthesample,elementaryteachersmadeup69.5%oftheparticipantswith30.5%oftherespondentsatthemiddleschoollevel,whichwasconsistentwiththegradeconfigurationofthedistrict.Aboutaquarter(23.9%)oftheteachersinthesamplewerefairlynewtotheteachingprofession(havingfiveyearsorlessteaching experience) and28.7%of teacherswere very experiencedwith over 20 years of experience.Over half of the sample (52.9%) hasworked in the current position for less than 5 years (elementaryschool—54.4%andmiddleschool—49.5%).Abouthalfofthesample(44.2%)hasworkedfornomorethanthreeprincipals.

FocusGroupInterviews

Focusgroup interviewswere conductedwithSAMsandwith principals to explore if andhowSAMsassistedprincipalsinmanagementandinstructionalleadership.Focusgroupswerechosenasthemethodtointerviewstudyparticipantsbasedontheconsiderationthatthisinterviewformatallowsinteractionsamongintervieweesandthereforeawiderangeofideasandperceptionscanemergefromthegroupsthat

would not be possible to gain from individual interviews (Creswell, 2013;Krueger&Casey, 2015).PrincipalsandSAMswere interviewed inseparategroupsso thateachgroupconsistedofparticipantswithsimilarpositionstoencouragesharingofperceptionsoftheirexperiences(Krueger&Casey,2015).AtotaloffivefocusgroupswereheldwithtwofocusgroupinterviewsconductedwithSAMsandthreefocusgroupswithprincipals.Eachfocusgroupinterviewwasconductedwithoneresearcherservingasafacilitatorandanotherresearcherservingasanote-taker.Thefocusgroupsizerangedfrom8to12forprincipalsandsixtoeightforSAMs.The interviews were arranged at a time and location convenient for majority of participants. Focusgroup interviewsuseda role-specific interviewprotocol (seeAppendixB)anda similarprocesswasfollowed in conducting the interviews. Participants were greeted and introduced to each other at thebeginningofeachinterview.Theinterviewfacilitatorexplainedthestudybenefitsandwhatparticipationinthestudyentailed.Theroleofthenote-takerwasalsoexplained.Consentformswerecollectedfrominterviewparticipantsafteritwasexplainedtheirparticipationintheinterviewswasvoluntaryandtheywereassuredofconfidentialityoftheinterviewresults.

ANALYSIS

The teacher survey and the focus group data were analyzed as appropriate. Analysis procedures aredescribedbelow.

Survey

TheinternalconsistencyofsurveyitemswasassessedusingCronbach’salpha.Thecoefficientalphaforallsurveyareasrangedfrom0.845to0.934(seeTable1)indicatingahighdegreeofinternalconsistencyamongitemsthatmeasuremanagementandinstructionalleadership.Initialanalysiswasconductedusingdescriptive statistics to illustrate the overall teacher perception of SAMs’ impact on principals’managementandinstructionalleadership.SeparateMANOVAanalyseswereconductedtoexploreiftherewasasignificantschool-leveleffect(elementaryschoolvs.middleschool)onteacherperceptionoftheimpactofSAMsonleadershipresponsibilities.ThefirstMANOVAwascarriedoutcomparing teacherperceptionsofimprovementinthemajorleadershipresponsibilityareasandthesecondMANOVAwasconductedtoevaluateteacherperceptionsoftheextentofimprovement.IfMANOVAanalysesresultedinasignificantschool-leveleffect,univariateANOVAanalyseswouldbeusedtopinpointinwhichmajorleadershipresponsibilityarea(s)asignificanteffectexists.

Table1.ReliabilityEstimatesforSAMSurvey

LeadershipArea #ofItems Cronbach’sAlpha

AgreementofimprovementManagement 5 0.845Instructionalleadership—Frequency 5 0.867Instructionalleadership—Quality 7 0.924ExtentofimprovementManagement 5 0.851Instructionalleadership—Frequency 5 0.899Instructionalleadership—Quality 7 0.934

FocusGroups

PrincipalsandSAMswereinvitedtoparticipateinfocusgroupinterviews.Eachfocusgroupinterviewsessionwas tape recorded and lasted about an hour.The facilitator asked the interviewquestions and

facilitated each interview.Follow-upquestionswere asked for clarification.Note-takers tookdetailednotesduringtheinterview.Immediatelyfollowingeachinterviewnote-takersmadeaninitialanalysisofthenotes.After all focusgroup interviewswere completed, the interviewdata fromeach sessionwastranscribed verbatim by a transcription service. The researchers individually reviewed all interviewtranscripts and identified initial codes and themes. The research team then compared the initial codesanalyzingbothconvergentanddivergentcodesandthemes.Differenceswereresolvedthroughareviewof the transcript and discussion. The transcripts were then recoded using the agreed upon codes andthemes.

RESULTS

SURVEY

ComparingMajorLeadershipAreas

Toinvestigateifthelevelofschool(elementaryvs.middleschool)hadasignificanteffectonteachers’perceived impact of theSAM implementation, twoMANOVAanalyseswere conducted on the teachersurvey responses. Results are presented in Table 2. The first MANOVA was carried out on teacheragreement on improvements in the major leadership areas: management along with the frequency andqualityofinstructionalleadership.Thetestshowedsignificantdifferencesexistsbetweenelementaryandmiddleschool teachers’perceptions[Wilks’sLambdaɅ=6.76,F(3,293)=2525.68,p<0.001,η2=0.07].Follow-upunivariateANOVAsoneachoftheleadershipresponsibilityareasrevealedsignificantschool-level effects on improvements inmanagement [F(1, 295)=6.02,p < 0.001, η2= 0.06] and inperceivedfrequencyandqualityofinstructionalleadershipresponsibilities[F(1,295)=5.02,p<0.001,η2=0.05;F(1,295)=6.08,p<0.001,η2=0.05].Meansandstandarddeviationsreportedforeachareaof leadership responsibilities illustrated thatmiddle school teachers had significantly higher ratings ineach of these areas. The partial eta-squared values suggested that there was amoderate school-leveleffectonperceivedimprovement.A second MANOVA was conducted on teacher perceptions of the extent of improvement in themanagement and instructional leadership areas. Results showed significant differences exist betweenelementaryandmiddleschoolteachers’perceptions[Wilks’sLambdaɅ=6.76,F(3,289)=1344.88,p<0.001,η2=0.11].Follow-upunivariateANOVAsoneachoftheleadershipresponsibilityareasrevealedsignificantschool-leveleffectsonimprovementsinmanagement[F(1,291)=16.89,p<0.001,η2=0.11]andtheperceivedfrequencyandqualityofinstructionalleadershipresponsibilities[F(1,291)=12.52,p<0.001,η2=0.07;F(1,291)=11.91,p<0.001,η2=0.06].Meansandstandarddeviationsreportedforeachareaofleadershipresponsibilitiesshowedsignificantlyhigherratingsbymiddleschoolteachersineach of these leadership responsibility areas. The partial eta-squared values suggested a moderateschool-level effect on perceived extent of improvement. This effect is slightly larger than that onperceivedimprovement,especiallyinthemanagementresponsibilityarea.

Table2.DescriptiveStatisticsandMANOVAResultsforElementaryandMiddleSchoolsbyLeadershipArea

Figure 2 depicts the 95% confidence intervals around themean response in each of the threemajorleadershipareasforelementaryandmiddleschools.Thefirstset(theleftthreeerrorbarsforelementaryand middle schools, respectively) shows 95% confidence intervals for mean responses in perceivedimprovement.Thesecondset(therightthreeerrorbarsforelementaryandmiddleschoolsrespectively)indicates95%confidenceintervalsformeanresponsesintheextentofimprovement.Thegraphillustratesclearlysignificantdifferencesexistbetweenelementaryandmiddleschoolteachers’surveyresponses.Inaddition, the graph illustrates that teacher responses were generally higher with respect to perceivedimprovement thanwith respect to the extent of improvement.However, differencesbetweenperceivedimprovementandtheextentofimprovementweremorepronouncedinelementaryschoolsthaninmiddleschools.Thedatatakentogetherindicatedthatmiddleschoolteachershadveryfavorableperceptionsofthe SAM implementation and of its impact on improving principals’ performance of management andinstructionalresponsibilities.

Figure2.95%confidenceintervalsformeanresponsesbyschoollevelandbyleadershiparea.

ComparingSurveyItemsWithintheLeadershipArea

FollowingtheMANOVAanalysisofthesurveydata,teacherresponsestoeachsurveyitemwithineachleadership responsibility area were examined. Results for specific management or instructionalresponsibilityarereportedinTables3–5.Inreviewingtheresults,wefoundthatthemajorityofteachersagreed or strongly agreed with improvement in all management and instructional leadership areassurveyed.Middle school teachers gave overwhelmingly positive responses. In fact, 75–90% teachersfrommiddleschoolsagreedorstronglyagreedtherehadbeenimprovementsincetheimplementationofSAMsupport.ElementaryschoolteacherswerealsopositiveabouttheimprovementsinceSAMs,buttheresponseswerenotas strongasmiddle school teachers.Atbothelementaryandmiddle school levels,more teachers agreed or strongly agreed with improvement in the management areas than in the

instructionalleadershipareas.Fifty-eightpercentofelementaryschoolteachersagreedorstronglyagreedwithSAMs’positiveimpactinimplementingtheIowaprofessionaldevelopmentmodel.Eventhoughthisisthelowestpercentagerelatedtoinstructionalleadership,itstillindicatesthatoverhalfofelementaryschoolteacherswereinagreement.

Table3.PerceptionofImprovementandExtentofImprovementinManagementActivities

Whenexaminingtheextentofimprovementinmanagementandinstructionalleadership(seeTables3–5),we found that most middle school teachers (56–80%) perceived moderate to great improvement inmanagementandinstructionalleadership.Inmanagement,75to80%ofmiddleschoolteachersperceivedmoderatetogreatimprovementinstudentsupervision,disciplinemanagement,andfacilitationofschoolimprovement processes. In instructional leadership, over 66% middle school teachers perceivedmoderatetogreatimprovementinthefrequencyandqualityofprincipalfeedbacktoteachersandintheadministrativesupportofstudentacademicneeds.Teacherresponsesfromelementaryschoolsinregardtotheextentofimprovementwerelessfavorablecomparedtothosefrommiddleschools.Themajorityofelementary teachers perceived moderate to great improvement in student supervision. Half of theelementaryteachersperceivedmoderatetogreatimprovementindisciplinemanagementaswellasinthefrequencyandqualityofprincipalfeedback.However,inimprovingsupportstaffefficiency,inmanagingbuilding operations, and in implementing the Iowa professional development model, more elementaryteachersperceivedonlyalittleimprovementratherthanmoderatetogreatimprovement.

Table4.PerceptionofImprovementandExtentofImprovementinFrequencyofInstructionalLeadershipActivities

Overall,teacherswereverypositiveabouttheSAM’sroleinimprovingthevariousaspectsofbuildingmanagementandinenhancingtheprincipal’sroleasaninstructionalleader.Inthedistrictthatwestudied,middle schools gave significantly more positive feedback on SAMs’ impact. The majority of middleschool teachers perceivedmoderate togreat improvement in all areas surveyed.Facilitationof schoolimprovement process had the highest rating among middle school teachers. For both elementary andmiddleschoolteachers,moderatetogreatimprovementwasperceivedinstudentsupervision,disciplinemanagement,andinthefrequencyandqualityofprincipalfeedbacktoteachers.

Table5.PerceptionofImprovementandExtentofImprovementinQualityofInstructionalLeadershipActivities

FOCUSGROUPS

The focus group interview data provided a context for understanding the survey results. Four themesemergedfromtheanalysisofthefocusgroupinterviewswithprincipalsandSAMs:(1)communicationandcollaboration;(2)mentoring,training,andcoaching;(3)distributionofmanagementresponsibilities;and(4)instructionalleadership.Abriefdescriptionofeachthemefollows.

CommunicationandCollaboration

One theme that recurred in both the principal and SAM focus groups was communication andcollaboration.BoththeprincipalsandtheSAMsreiteratedtheimportanceofdailyconversations(albeitbriefmeetingsof10–15minutes)betweentheprincipalandtheSAM.DailyconversationsbetweentheprincipalandtheSAMarecrucialforsettingobjectives,problem-solving,andmanagingtheprincipal’scalendar.Regardlessofthetimeofdayorthefrequencyofthemeetings,bothprincipalsandSAMssaiditwascritical tofindthemodesofcommunicationthatworkbestfortheprincipal-SAMteam.OneSAMstated,“Youhavetofindmodesthatworkwellforeveryone.”AbigbenefitoftheSAMimplementationseemed to be having a person to collaboratewith, as another SAM stated, “You both have that otherpersontobounceoffthings...that’sthemostimportantpart.”However, both the principals and SAMs discussed the fact that this type of communication and acollaborativerelationship“take[s]timetodevelop.”Oneprincipalsaid,“Havingthoseconversationsandbuildingrelationshipsisnoteasytodo.”Developingarelationshipofopencommunicationandregularcollaboration is critical in aproductiveprincipal–SAMrelationship.Figuringout thebestway for theteam to communicate, participating in regular meetings, and navigating the principal’s calendar arecriticalforsuccessfulimplementationofSAMs.

Mentoring,Training,andCoaching

PrincipalsandSAMssawtheirrelationshipasoneofmentoringandcoaching.Oneprincipalmentionedthatprincipalsspend time“helping them[theSAMs]andsupporting themandcoaching them.”Anotherprincipalsaid,“Idothinkwehavethatheadcoach/assistantcoachrelationship.”Theprincipals talkedabout giving the SAMs the opportunity to “do more educational leadership tasks rather than [just]manage”because“wearegrowingourownleaders.”Theprincipalsspendtime“helpingthem[theSAM]andsupportingthemandcoachingthem.”BothprincipalsandSAMstalkedabouttheneedfortrustintherelationship.Accordingtooneprincipal,“Youhavetobuildtrust.Idon’tthinkanybodycanjustwalkin.Weworkedsohard”tobuildtrustandourrelationship.

DistributionofManagementResponsibilities

ThepurposeofaSAMisfortheprincipaltodispersemanagementresponsibilitiestotheSAMandotherschool staff members so that the principal can spend more time on instructional leadership. A SAMprevents theprincipal fromgetting“swallowedupwithmanagement” tasks.However,asoneprincipalsaid,“Ifyoudonotmanageyourbuilding,youwillgetfired.”Sothetensiontomakesurethebuildingrunssmoothly (i.e.,management)and theneed tobean instructional leader isadefiniteconcernof theprincipals.Foroneprincipal thebiggestchallengewas“justallowing them[theSAM] to take things.”Thiswasbecauseofaconcernabout theramificationsfor turningovermanagement tasksandresponsibilities. Inmanycasestheprincipalhadworkedindependentlyasaleadersothismaywellhavebeenthefirsttimethe principal was working collaboratively on a day-to-day basis with another school leader. Oneprincipal stated itwas a “challenge to get used to actually having someonewhodid all these things.”Having a SAM to assist in running the building requires a change in how the principal operates.

Nevertheless, the issuegoesbeyondjust thebuilding’soperation toaconcernabouthaving“somebodyundowhatyou’vebuiltup.It’sjustasdifficulttobuilditbackupagain.”

InstructionalLeadership

SAMsmade it possible for principals to be in the classrooms and to havemore time observing andmonitoringinstruction.PrincipalsacknowledgedthathavingaSAMis“agreatopportunity. . .tobeintheclassroommoreoftenandtoimproveinstructioninthebuilding.”Oneprincipalsaidthat“beforehehadaSAMthatdidn’thappen.”HavingaSAMtakingovermanagerialdutiesallowed theprincipal to“actuallygobackandcheckin[totheclassroom]forimplementation”ofideasandsuggestions.TheSAMpositionalsogaveprincipals theopportunity tomodel lessonsandcoach teachersespeciallybeginningteachers.Accordingtooneprincipal,“Itisjustfunformetokindofmodelaswellascoachbeginningteachers.NowIcanspendmoretimeinherclassroom.”OneSAMechoedthisconceptwhenhesaidthat“weare to set theprincipalup tomodel . . . that’showyou’regoing tohelpyourprincipalbecomeabetterinstructionalleader.”A sidebenefit ofbeing in classroomsmore, according tooneprincipal,was that “teacher leadershiprosealotthroughtheSAMprojectbecauseyouknowwhereyourleadersare.”Abenefitwasalsonotedfor teachersat theotherendof thespectrum. Ithelped identify the“struggling teachersandclassroomswhere I need to get in a little quality time.”However, having the principal in classroomsmore is notwithout growing pains.Many teacherswere not used to having the principal in the room other than aformal observation or to dealwith a student problem.One principal said, “A lot of teachers seem tobelievethateverytimewe’reintheroom,we’resupervisingorevaluating.It’snotthecase.”

DISCUSSION

Schoolsareheld increasinglyaccountableforstudentperformance.Over threedecadesofresearchhassuggested thatprincipalswhoare instructional leadersareeffectivebuilding leadersandhavepositiveinfluence on student achievement (Hattie, 2009; Hallinger & Murphy, 2013; Leithwood et al., 2004;Marks&Printy,2003;Nettles&Herrington,2007).However,theschoolprincipalisfrequentlycaughtinan ever expandingweb of responsibilities: “Theymust be educational visionaries and change agents,instructional leaders, curriculum and assessment experts, budget analysts, facility managers, specialprogram administrators, and community builders” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007, p. 1).Growing jobresponsibilitiesandunrealisticexpectationscreatefrustrationsfortheschoolprincipal.TheSAMmodelwasdesignedtorestructuretheroleoftheprincipalsothatinstructionalleadershipbecomesthepriority.ThisstudycollectedbothquantitativeandqualitativedatatoevaluatetheimpactofSAMsonprincipals’managerialandinstructionalleadershipinelementaryandmiddleschools.Thequantitativedata showed that elementary andmiddle school teachershadpositiveperceptionsoftheirprincipals’performanceofmanagerialandinstructionalresponsibilities.Ofnoteisthatintheareaofinstructionalleadership,theperceivedpositiveimpactisfoundinbothincreasedfrequencyandimprovedqualityof instructional leadership.These findings suggest that increasing theamountof timeprincipalsspend on instructional leadership has the potential to improve the quality of instructional leadership.Additionally, the benefits of having SAMs in placewere demonstrated in various leadership areas inmanagementandinstructionalleadership.Thesefindingssupporttheimportanceofprincipalsfocusingoninstructionalleadershipaspointedoutinpreviousleadershipstudies(e.g.Hallinger,2011;Hallinger&Murphy,2013;Leithwoodetal.,2004).Survey results revealed a higher percentage of middle school teachers perceive moderate to great

improvementinmanagementandinstructionalleadershipthanteachersinelementaryschools.Thiscouldbe because elementary school principals had focused on instructional leadership prior to SAMs, assuggested by studies on instructional leadership across different school levels (Grigsby et al. 2010;Wahlstrom,2012), resulting in the lower levelof improvement reportedbyelementary school teachersthanbythemiddleschoolteachers.Baseduponinternationalstudies(PISAandTIMSSdata)andNAEPdata, secondary schools have seenminimal achievement gains under the current accountability policy(Hull,2007;Hanushek,Peterson,&Woessmann,2012).Assuch,instructionalleadershipisparticularlyimportantinsecondaryschools.TheperceivedoverwhelmingsuccessoftheSAMmodelinthesampleofmiddleschoolssuggestsastrongneedforSAMsupportinmiddleschoolstofreeupprincipals’timeforinstructional issues. Delegating managerial responsibilities to SAMs allowed the principals in theseschoolstohavemoreinteractionswithteachersandstudents,resultingintheperceivedimprovementintheprincipal’sroleasaninstructionalleader.ThefocusgroupinterviewswithprincipalsandSAMsoutlinedtheprocessofputtingtheSAMmodelinplace and clarified how SAMs, working together with their principals, facilitated and enhancedprincipals’rolesasbuildingmanagersandinstructionalleaders.TheinterviewsalsorevealedchallengesandconcernsindevelopingatrustingrelationshipbetweenprincipalsandSAMs.Ongoingcommunicationand collaboration between SAMs and principals is the key to the success of the SAMmodel.Whensuccessfullyimplemented,theSAMpositionbenefitsprincipalsbyprovidingmoretimeoninstructionalissues, creating opportunities for SAMs to gain leadership experiences, and helping districts developschool leaders. The study’s findings provide evidence that the SAMmodel is a promising strategy tofocustheprincipal’stimeoninstructionaltasks.WithSAMsinplace,principalshadmoreopportunitiestoprovideinstructionalsupportandtoinfluenceinstructionalpractices.

IMPLICATIONS

Findings from the study have important implications for school practitioners and researchers ineducational leadership. The survey results suggest that school context may influence instructionalleadershipactivitiesandtheperceivedeffectsof these leadershipactivities.Thedatapointout that theimpactofinstructionalleadershippracticesvariesbyschoolorganizationalcontext.Whatworksinsomeschools or certain types of schools may not work as well in others. School practitioners need to becognizantthatinstructionalleadershippracticesthatareshowntobeeffectiveinonecontextmaynotbetransferabletoothercontextsanditisthereforecrucialtoexaminewhatinstructionalleadershippracticesare effective forwhat typesof schools.Todate, considerable leadership researchhas been conductedexamining decontextualized instructional leadership behaviors (Neumerski, 2013).While these studiesare valuable in developing our understanding of instructional leadership practices that impact studentoutcomes, there is an emerging need for studies to focus on school context and how that influencesinstructionalleadershippractices.EvaluatingtheSAMmodelanditsimplementationprocesshaspracticalsignificancetoschoolleadersand their leadership practices. The SAM model offers flexibility in creating or designing the SAMpositionandit isavaluableresourcetoguideschooladministrators in theimplementationofSAMs.IffundingconstrainsthecreationofanewSAMpositionordelegationofanexistingpositionexclusivelyforSAMresponsibilities(Model1),schoolsmightconsideralternativeSAMmodelsbyassigningSAMresponsibilities to an existing position (e.g., secretary, dean, or assistant principal) with or withoutadditionalcompensations(Models2and3).ThealternativeSAMmodelsmakeitpossibleforschoolstoemploytheSAMapproachwithoutincurringadditionalexpendituresorincreasingpersonnel,enablingawide range of schools to employ the approach in creating opportunities for principals to engage in

instructionalleadershipactivities.Focusgroup interview findings revealmultiplebenefitsofadopting theSAMapproach in schools. Inaddition to releasing principals from managerial responsibilities so that more time can be spent onteachingandinstruction,theSAMmodelengagesothers(e.g.,SAMs)inleadershiprolesandinsodoingit expands the leadership functionbeyond theprincipal and enables others to act and to lead learning.Hallinger andMurphy (2013) pointed out that a key strategy for principals to allocatemore time forinstructionaldomainsistoshareordistributeleadershipandtofostercollectiveinstructionalleadership.Byhavingotherstoassumepartoftheleadershipresponsibilities,theSAMapproachincreasesthetimeavailableforprincipalstofocusoninstructionanddevelopsgreatercollectivecapacityforleadership.IntheeraofincreasedaccountabilityplacedonAmericanschools,thereisanincreasedurgencyforschoolprincipals to find“the timeand thecapacity to lead learning” (Hallinger&Murphy,2013,p.13).TheSAMapproach representsapowerfuland realistic strategy that schoolprincipalscouldutilize in theireffortstoimproveschoolsandstudentlearning.

LIMITATIONS

Althoughthestudyfoundthatelementaryschoolandmiddleschoolteachersperceivedpositiveimpactinmanagerialandinstructionalleadershipareas,thestudyresultsarelimitedbyseveralfactorsthatmaybeaddressedinfuturestudies.First, theteachersurveyandfocusgroupinterviewswereconductedinonelarge urban school district where the district administration was very supportive of the SAMimplementation. In addition, the district had support from the School Administrators of Iowa throughfundingbytheWallaceFoundationforSAMimplementation.Thelevelofsupportprovidedbythedistrictadministration along with the support from the School Administrators of Iowa may have createdconditions for successful implementation of the SAM processes. The positive results from this studyshouldbeinterpretedwithinthiscontext.Second,teachersweresurveyedabouttheirperceptionsoftheimprovementandextentofimprovementinvariousmanagerialandinstructionalleadershipareasaftertheSAMwas in place in the school.Although surveys are efficient in capturing awide rangeof areas inSAMimplementation,theuseofsurveydatamayintroducebiasedestimatesofeffects.Theresearchersconducted focus group interviews in an attempt to complement and validate findings from the survey.Third, the study focuses on evaluation of the SAM impact on principal management and instructionalleadershipandresultsshowthatdelegatingprincipalmanagerialresponsibilitieshaspositiveimpactonprincipalsperformingvariousmanagerialandinstructionalfunctions.Ultimately,theSAMapproach,withitsemphasisonincreasingtheprincipal’stimeoninstructionalleadership,istobringaboutbetterstudentperformance.AlogicalnextsteptoextendthecurrentresearchistoinvestigatethelinkbetweenadoptingtheSAMapproachandincreasedstudentlearningsothatadditionalempiricalevidencemaybecollectedtoaddtotheunderstandingoftheSAMmodel.

CONCLUSION

The study utilized a teacher survey and focus group interviews to investigate the impact of SAMs onprincipals’managerial and instructional leadership in elementary andmiddle schools.The surveydataillustratedthatteachershadpositiveperceptionsofSAMsinfacilitatingandenhancingtheprincipal’rolein building management and instructional leadership. Greater improvement was perceived in studentsupervision,disciplinemanagement,and in thefrequencyandqualityofprincipal feedbackto teachers.Additionally,surveyresultsshowedthattheimpactofSAMswasperceivedstrongerinmiddleschoolsthaninelementaryschools.

Follow-up focus group interviews with principals and SAMs identified ongoing communication andcollaborationbetweenSAMsandprincipalsasthekeytothesuccessoftheSAMmodel.Theinterviewsrevealed that theSAMpositionnotonlybenefitsprincipalsbyenabling them toallocatemore timeoninstructional issues, but also benefits SAMs by creating opportunities for them to gain and developleadership experiences. The SAM model was developed to release principals from managerialresponsibilities so that instructional leadership becomes a priority. The model offers flexibility inadapting the SAM position to varying school contexts and holds promise as a practical strategy topromotetheprincipal’sroleasaninstructionalleader.

REFERENCES

Creswell,J.W.(2013).Qualitativeinquiryandresearchdesign:Choosingamongfiveapproaches.(3rdEdition).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Creswell, J.W.(2014).Researchdesign:Qualitative,quantitative,andmixedmethodsapproaches. (4thedition).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Darling-Hammond,L., LaPointe,M.,Meyerson,D.,Orr,M.T.,&Cohen,C. (2007).Preparing school leaders for a changingworld:Lessonsfromexemplaryleadershipdevelopmentprograms.StanfordUniversity:StanfordEducationalLeadershipInstitute.

Edmonds,R.P.(1979).Effectiveschoolsfortheurbanpoor.EducationalLeadership,37(1),15–24.Firestone, W. A., & Herriott, R. E. (1982). Prescriptions for effective elementary schools don’t fit secondary schools. Educational

Leadership,40(3),51–53.Grigsby,B.,Schumacher,G.,Decman, J.&Simieou,F. (Summer2010).Aprincipal’sdilemma: Instructional leaderormanager.Academic

Leadership,8(3),1–5.Grissom,J.A.,Loeb,S.,&Master,B.(2013).EffectiveInstructionalTimeUseforSchoolLeaders:LongitudinalEvidencefromObservations

ofPrincipals.EducationalResearcher,42(8),433–444.Hallinger,P.(1990).Principalinstructionalmanagementratingscale.Sarasota,FL:LeadingDevelopmentAssociates.Hallinger,P.(2005).Instructionalleadershipandtheschoolprincipal:Apassingfancythatrefusestofadeaway.LeadershipandPolicy in

Schools,4(3),221–239.Hallinger,P.(2011).Leadershipforlearning:Lessonsfrom40yearsofempiricalresearch.JournalofEducationalAdministration,49(2),

125–142.Hallinger, P. (2012). A data-driven approach to assess and develop instructional leadership with the PIMRS. In J. Shen (Ed.), Tools for

improvingprincipals’work (pp.47–69).NewYork,NY:PeterLangPublishing.Hallinger, P.,&Heck, R.H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and

SchoolImprovement,9(2),157–191.Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and

studentlearning.SchoolLeadershipandManagement,30(2),55–110.Hallinger,P.,&Murphy,J.F.(2013).Runningonempty?Findingthetimeandcapacitytoleadlearning.NASSPBulletin,97(1),5–21.Hanushek, E. A., Peterson, P. E., &Wossemann, L. (2012). Achievement Growth: International and U. S. State Trends in Student

Performance.HarvardKennedySchool:Harvard’sProgramonEducationPolicyandGovernance&EducationNext.Hattie,J.(2009).Visiblelearning:Asynthesisofover800meta-analysesrelatingtoachievement.NewYork,NY:Routledge.Horng,E.L.,Klasik,D.,&LoebS.(2010).Principals’timeuseandeffectiveness.AmericanJournalofEducation,116(4),491–523.Hull, J. (2007).More than a horse race: A guide on international tests of student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Center for Public

Education.Krueger,R.A.,&Casey,M.A.(2015).Focusgroups:Apracticalguideforappliedresearch(5thedition).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.Leithwood,K.,&Jantzi,D.(2008).Linkingleadershiptostudentlearning:Thecontributionsofleaderefficacy.EducationalAdministration

Quarterly,44(4),496–528.Leithwood,K.,Louis,K. S.,Anderson, S.,&Wahlstrom,K. (2004).How leadership influences student learning.NewYork,NY:The

WallaceFoundation.Louis,K. S., Leithwood,K.,Wahlstrom,K. L.,&Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final

reportofresearchfindings.St.Paul,MN:UniversityofMinnesota.Marks, H. M. & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional

leadership.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,39(3),370–397.May,H.,Huff,J.,&Goldring,E.B.(2012).Alongitudinalstudyofprincipal’sactivitiesandschoolperformance.SchoolEffectivenessand

SchoolImprovement,23(4),417–439.May,H.,&Supovitz,J.A.(2011).Thescopeofprincipaleffortstoimproveinstruction.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,47(2),332–

352.NationalSAMInnovationProject.(n.d.).SAMIntroduction.[Brochure].Louisville,KY:Author.Nettles, S.M.,&Herrington,C. (2007).Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: The

implicationsforschoolimprovementpolicy.PeabodyJournalofEducation,82(4),724–736.Neumerski,C.M. (2013).Rethinking instructional leadership, a review:Whatdoweknowaboutprincipal, teacher, and coach instructional

leadership,andwhereshouldwegofromhere?EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,49(2),310–347.Robinson,V.M.J.,Lloyd,C.A.&Rowe,K.J.(2008).Theimpactofleadershiponstudentoutcomes:Ananalysisofthedifferentialeffects

ofleadershiptypes.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,44(5),635–674.SchoolAdministratorsofIowa.(n.d.).IowaSAMS.[Brochure].DesMoines,IA:Author.Shellinger,M.(2005).Alternativeadministrationstudy.(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED490688).Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Toward a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of

CurriculumStudies,31(1),3–34.Supovitz, J. A., Sirinides, P., &May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning.Educational Administration

Quarterly,46(1),31–56.Turnbull, B. J., Arcaira, E., Sinclair, B. (2011). Implementation of the National SAM Innovation Project: A Comparison of Project

Designs.Washington,DC:PolicyStudyAssociates.Waters, T., Marzano, R. J. and McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of

leadershiponstudentachievement.Aurora,CO:Mid-continentResearchforEducationandLearning(McREL).Wenlingsky,H. (2002).Howschoolsmatter:The linkbetween teacherclassroompracticesandstudentacademicperformance.Education

PolicyAnalysisArchives,10(12),1–30.Wahlstrom,K. (2012).Anup-close viewof instructional leadership:Agrounded analysis. InK.Leithwood&K.S.Louis (Eds.),Linking

LeadershiptoStudentLearning(pp.68–86).SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.Witziers,B.,Bosker,R.J.,&Kruger,M.L.(2003).Educational leadershipandstudentachievement:Theelusivesearchforanassociation.

EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,39(5),398–425.

ZhaohuiShengisanassociateprofessorofeducationalleadershipatWesternIllinoisUniversity.Sheteachesresearchandstatisticscoursesin the educational leadership program and provides dissertation research support for doctoral students. Her research interests focus onapplyingquantitativemethodstoeducationalissues.LoraWolff is an assistant professor of educational leadership atWestern IllinoisUniversity. She teaches courses for future principals andsuperintendents. She has served as superintendent, assistant superintendent, director of Technology and Communications, and high schoolEnglish,speech,andjournalismteacher.LloydKilmerhasexperienceasahighschoolandmiddleschoolteacher,buildingadministrator,anddistrictadministratorinavarietyofK-12districts.Inaddition,hehastaughtat theundergraduateandgraduatelevelsat threedifferentinstitutions.Mostrecently,hehasservedasadepartmentchairpersonforCounselorEducationandassistantdeanatWesternIllinoisUniversity.Additionally,hehasdoneconsultingworkwithasuperintendentsearchfirm,conductingworkshopsonstudentengagementandassistingwithschoolimprovementactivitiesinIllinoisandIowa.StuartYagerisaprofessorineducationalleadershipatWesternIllinoisUniversityteachingatallthreelevelsofWestern’sgraduateprogram.His professional background includes being a principal, assistant superintendent, and superintendent in school districts in theMidwest.Hisresearchinterestsfocusondistributedleadershipandcollectivebargaining.

APPENDIXA

SAMSURVEY

PleaserateifthefollowingareashaveimprovedduringtheperiodoftimethattheschoolhashadSAMsupportandiftheyhaveimproved,pleaseindicatetheextentoftheimprovement.

1. effectivenessanddeliveryspeedofsupportservicesofferedbysupportstaff(e.g.,secretary)2. management of the building operations such as custodial services, technology infrastructure, andscheduling

3. supervisionofstudentsinthehallway,atlunch,atthebusdrop,andatactivities4. managementandhandlingofstudentdisciplineissuesfromtheclassroom5. facilitationofdatateams,buildingcommittees,andotherschoolimprovementprocesses6. frequencyoffeedbackfrommyprincipal’sclassroomwalkthroughs(informalobservations)

7. amountoffeedbackfromclassroomwalkthroughsbymyprincipal(informalobservations)8. frequencyofadministrativesupportforworkingwithindividualstudentacademicneeds9. qualityofadministrativesupportforworkingwithindividualstudentacademicneeds10. frequency of feedback offered by administrators on my teaching, lesson development, and/or

technologyintegrationinmyclassroom11. qualityoffeedbackofferedbyadministratorsonmyteaching,lessondevelopment,and/ortechnology

integrationinmyclassroom12. frequencyofpositive reinforcementofferedbyadministratorsonmyperformanceasa teacherand

employeeofthisdistrict13. quality of positive reinforcement offered by administrators on my performance as a teacher and

employeeofthisdistrict14. frequency of job-embedded professional development to enhance my understanding of curricular

changes,programdevelopment,and/orclassroomteaching15. quality of job-embedded professional development to enhance my understanding of curricular

changes,programdevelopment,and/orclassroomteaching16. effectivenessofimplementingtheIowaProfessionalDevelopmentModelatthebuildinglevel17. quality of my teaching, as a result of additional coaching from the principal and content-area

specialist(e.g.,literacycoach)

APPENDIXB

INTERVIEWQUESTIONS

FocusGroupQuestions:

Principals

1. TellmehowyoufeelaboutselectingandsupervisingaSAMinyourbuilding.2. Pleasesharesomeofthemostimportantmanagementactivitiesthatyouassignedtohim/herorthosethathe/shevolunteeredfor.

3. Discuss themechanisms used with your SAM to control the calendar and prioritize activities forhim/her.

4. DiscussyourperceptionsonhowtheSAMrolehasaffectedtheoperationsoftheschooloffice.5. Discuss your perceptions on how the SAM role has affected your access to and engagement inclassroomactivitieswithteachers.

6. Discuss your perceptions on how the flow, clarity, and impact of communication from the schoolofficetoschoolpersonnelhavechangedwiththeimplementationoftheSAM.

7. Discussyourperceptionsonhowtheschoolhasmettheacademicandbehavioralneedsofdifferentstudentsubgroups(e.g.,gifted,Tier2,Tier3).

8. PleasesharesomeoftheimportantbenefitsofhavingaSAMinyouradministrativeteam.

SAMs

1. TellmehowyouwererecruitedorselectedasaSAMandhowyouwereassignedabuilding.2. Please share some of the most important management activities that you were assigned to orvolunteeredfor.

3. Discussthemechanismsusedwithyourprincipalstocontrolthecalendarandprioritizeactivitiesforhim/her.

4. DiscussyourperceptionsonhowtheSAMrolehasaffectedtheoperationsoftheschooloffice.5. DiscussyourperceptionsonhowtheSAMrolehasaffectedtheprincipals’accesstoandengagementinclassroomactivitieswithteachers.

6. Discuss your perceptions on how the flow, clarity, and impact of communication from the schoolofficetoschoolpersonnelhavechangedwiththeimplementationoftheSAM.

7. Discussyourperceptionsonhowtheschoolhasmettheacademicandbehavioralneedsofdifferentstudentsubgroups(e.g.,gifted,Tier2,Tier3).

8. Please share some of the important administrative skills, knowledge, and processes that you havelearnedwhileservingasaSAM.

Address correspondence to Zhaohui Sheng, PhD, Educational Leadership Program, Department of Educational Studies, Western IllinoisUniversity,Macomb,IL,61455.E-mail:zb-sheng@wiu.edu.

INSTRUCTIONSFORAUTHORSSubmittingPaperstotheJournal:1. Manuscripts submitted for publication consideration should be sent electronically, via emailattachment, toDr.Gaetane Jean-Marie,Editor, Journal of SchoolLeadership, at jsl@louisville.edu.Two (2) copies of the manuscript should be attached: a master copy, including a title page (seeinstructionsbelow)andallcitationsandreferences,andamaskedcopyofthemanuscript,withthetitlepage and all other author identifying information removed (including citations and referencespertainingtoanyofthecontributingauthors’works).AttachmentsshouldbeinMicrosoftWordformat.Authors will receive email acknowledgment of receipt of their manuscript within two weeks ofsubmission.Ifconfirmationisnotreceivedwithinthisperiod,contacttheeditor.

2. Allmanuscriptsshouldbetyped,double-spaced,andfollowthestyleoutlinedinthesixtheditionofthePublicationManualoftheAmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

3. TitlePage.Thetitlepageshouldincludethenameandaffiliationofeachauthoraswellasaddress,country,ziporpostalcode,emailaddress,andtelephoneandfaxnumbers.Ashortrunningtitleofnomorethan50charactersshouldbeprovidedandincludedasaright-justifiedheaderoneachpageofthemanuscript.

4. Abstract.Includeanabstractofapproximately100words.5. Keywords. Include five to eight keywords that identify the topic and/ ormethodology used in thearticle.

6. References.Literaturereferencesshouldbelistedattheendofthemanuscript,followingthestyleinthesixtheditionofthePublicationManualoftheAmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

7. FiguresandPhotographs.Figuresmustbeblackandwhiteonly(nograyscale).Photographswillnotbeaccepted.

8. Tables. Tables must be formatted asWord documents and submitted on separate pages from textpages,includeaheading,andbenumberedconsecutivelyusingArabicnumbers.

9. Headings.HeadingsshouldappearasoutlinedinthesixtheditionofthePublicationManualoftheAmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

10. Length.Thelengthofmanuscriptsislimitedto40pagestotal.Thisincludesthetitlepage,abstract,manuscripttext,referencesandanyfigures,tables,andappendices.

11. AcceptedManuscripts.• ElectronicFile.Anemailattachmentcontainingacopyoftheacceptedmanuscriptandallappendedmaterials (e.g., tables, figures) and reflecting all revisions and changes must be submitted to theeditoratjsl@uni.eduafterfinalacceptanceforpublication.

• Permissions.TheauthorisresponsibleforobtainingreleasesfromotherpublishersforRowman&Littlefield to publishmaterial copyrighted by another party. Please contact the editor for forms tofacilitatethisprocess.

• PageProofs.AuthorsofacceptedmanuscriptswillreceivePDFpageproofsthatmustbereturnedtoDr.Jean-Mariewithintwoweeksofreceipt.Iftheproofsarenotreturnedwithintwoweeksofthedatemailedtotheauthors,thearticlewillappearaseditedbytheeditorsoftheJournalofSchoolLeadershipandcopyeditedbytheRowman&Littlefieldstaff.

• CopyrightInformation.AllarticlespublishedintheJournalofSchoolLeadershiparecopyrightedinthenameofthepublisher,exceptintheeventofprioragreementbetweentheauthorandthepublisher.

GENERALThe Journal of School Leadership is not responsible for the views expressed by individualcontributorsinarticlespublishedinthejournal.