the arkansas leadership academy
Post on 22-Feb-2016
42 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
The Arkansas Leadership Academy
Arkansas Leadership Academy Offices
Purpose of School Support
The Arkansas Leadership Academy School Support Program, in collaboration with the Arkansas Department of Education, provides support for a minimum of three consecutive school years to applicable schools or school districts in School Improvement.
Objectives of the Arkansas Leadership Academy School Support Program
• Build the leadership capacity of the school and district personnel;
• Train a diverse school leadership team, including, but not limited to, the superintendent/designee, school principal, and teachers;
• Provide a cadre of highly experienced, trained capacity building leaders to work in the school on a regular basis;
• Visit the school at least weekly to facilitate leadership activities and provide follow-up on professional development implementation;
• Work with the school, school district staff, school board members, parents, community members, and other stakeholders as necessary to provide a comprehensive support network;
• Work with the school board for at least 9 hours annually to establish goals for the school district and engage in strategic planning to meet district goals;
• Engage the community to gather input concerning strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and barriers within the school/district
Who Works in the Schools?
5 Full-time Capacity Builders
1 Half-time Capacity Builder
3 Partial-time Capacity Builders
Specialty Area Consultants
How has the Arkansas Leadership Academy School Support Program grown?
2009• 7 Elementary Schools• 4 Middle Schools• 6 High Schools• Total schools = 17 schools
2010• 7 Elementary Schools• 4 Middle Schools• 11 High Schools• Total = 22 schools
2011• 5 Elementary Schools• 6 Middle Schools• 14 High Schools• Total schools = 25 schools
Where are School Support Program Schools located?
School Support Program Outcomes
What are the outcomes of our work with teachers, leaders, and
students?
Leadership Efficacy
SSP initial focus is on building leadership capacity—hypothesize that as leadership capacity increases, leadership efficacy will increase. Measuring:• Management Efficacy• Instructional Leadership Efficacy• Moral Leadership Efficacy
Principals in SSP for their 3rd year had significantly higher instructional & moral leadership efficacy than those just starting with SSP.
Principals' Management Efficacy Principals' Instructional Leadership Efficacy Principals' Moral Leadership Efficacy1
1.52
2.53
3.54
4.55
5.56
6.57
7.58
8.59
5.94
6.486.96
6.5
7.217.56
6.75
7.47 7.57
Leadership Efficacy for Principals
Cohort 3 Cohort 2 Cohort 1
Mea
n Sc
ore
Cohort 1: 2009 to 2010 AYP Improvements in Initial Year
• 57% of schools moved to their first or second year of achieving standards.
• SSP schools doubled the number of groups meeting AYP from 2009 to 2010.
Post-appeals 2011 AYP results were not available at the time this report was compiled.
Substantial gains in proficient/advanced students the first year of SSP coupled with reducing the percentage of student most at risk (Below Basic).
2009
2010
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
14.7
11.1
36.7
32.8
37.2
41.1
11.3
15
SSP Schools' Literacy Performance 2009-2010
1-Below Basic 2-Basic 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
/Adv
ance
d
Results from Year 1 of SSP
2010
2011
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
10.4
9.9
32.7
32.3
42.5
41.7
14.5
16.1
SSP Schools' Literacy Performance 2010-2011
1-Below Basic 2-Basic 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
/Adv
ance
d
Results from Year 2 of SSP
Gains in advanced students the second year of SSP coupled with reducing the percentage of students most at risk (Below Basic). Year 2 includes addition of 1 elementary, 2 middle and 6 high schools.
Results from Year 1 of SSP
2009
2010
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
19.8
18
29.4
25.8
35.3
35.5
15.5
20.7
SSP Schools' Math Performance 2009-2010
1-Below Basic 2-Basic 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
/Adv
ance
d
Substantial gains in proficient/advanced students the first year of SSP coupled with reducing the percentage of student most at risk (Below Basic).
Year 2 results for SSP schools for math exhibit modest increases in proficient and advanced students.
2010
2011
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
17.1
15.5
24.6
24.7
37.6
38.7
20.7
21.1
SSP Schools' Math Performance 2010-2011
1-Below Basic 2-Basic 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
/Adv
ance
d
Results from Year 2 of SSP
Progress on achievemen
t gaps—greater gains in
literacy for African
American students in
Year 1.
2009 (N = 1562)
2010 (N = 1526)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
19.9
14.1
44
39.6
29
36.1
7
10.2
Total Literacy African AmericansPerformance for SSP Schools
2009-2010
1-Below Basic 2-Basic 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
2009 (N = 914)
2010 (N = 819)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
8.8
5.7
26.5
22.1
47.3
49.8
17.5
22.3
Total Literacy WhitePerformance for SSP Schools
2009-2010
1-Below Basic 2-Basic 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
2009 (N = 1966)
2010 (N = 1854)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
27.4
23.7
33.1
29.9
29.5
32.4
10.1
14
Total Math African AmericansPerformance for SSP Schools
2009-2010
1-Below Basic 2-Basic 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
2009 (N = 1124)
2010 (N = 1052)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
9.5
9.8
24.2
21.1
43.2
40.4
23
28.7
Total Math WhitePerformance for SSP 2Schools
2009-2010
1-Below Basic 2-Basic 3-Proficient 4-Advanced
Progress on achievemen
t gaps—greater gains in math for African
American students in
Year 1.
Summary of Results for SSP Years 1 and 2
• Substantial improvements for schools during year 1 for literacy and math.
• Continued, more modest improvements in Year 2.– Added more schools including 6 high schools
• Narrowed achievement gaps in general• Leaders in SSP have higher efficacy for
instructional and moral leadership after 2 years compared to leaders just beginning SSP.
top related