SAMS: Helping
Principals Make Time
for Instructional
Leadership
Lloyd Kilmer, Western Illinois University
Bridget Sheng, Western Illinois University
Lora Wolff, Western Illinois University
Stuart Yager, Western Illinois University
Lloyd
Bridget
Stuart
Lora
Contact us at:
 Lloyd Kilmer, lc-kilmer@wiu.edu
 Bridget Sheng, zb-sheng@wiu.edu
 Stuart Yager, so-yager@wiu.edu
 Lora Wolff, ll-wolff@wiu.edu
2
What is a SAM?
 SAM = School Administration
Manager
 A SAM is designed to change the
role of principal from a managerial
leader to an instructional leader.
Source: School Administrators of Iowa, “Iowa Sam”
3
Why a SAM?
 Principals spend 70% of their time
managing…
 Buses
 Budget
 Behavior
 That leaves 30% of their time for
instructional issues
Source: SAM, I Am, The Principal’s Story video
4
What do SAMS do?
 SAMs help principals use time/task data to reflect on
their practice.
 SAMS help principals increase the time they spend
as instructional leaders.
 SAMS help principals strengthen relationships with
teachers, parents and students to improve teaching
and learning.
 SAMs help principals distribute management
responsibilities and work with classified and support
staff to keep routine management administration
work from pulling the principal away from
instructional leadership.
Source: School Administrators of Iowa, “Iowa Sam”
5
Examples of Management Tasks
 Student supervision (bus, lunch, recess, hallways)
 Student discipline (behavior management)
 Employee supervision (monitoring support staff)
 Employee discipline (work rules, warnings)
 Office work/preparation (copying, finding materials, agendas)
 Building management (maintenance, cleaning)
 Parents/guardians (attendance, illness)
 Decision making committees, groups, meetings
 District meetings, supervisors
 External: officials, meetings (fire marshal, DHS)
 Celebrations
Source: “ASAS Time/Task Analysis”
6
How and when did the
SAM Project begin?
 2002 in Louisville, KY
 “Alternative School Administration Study” that
examined the use of principal’s time
 Looked at conditions that prevented principals from
becoming instructional leaders
 Nine Wallace partner states are participating in the
SAM pilot—California, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois,
IOWA, Kentucky, Missouri, New York and Texas
Source: FAQ: National School Administration Manager Project
7
Background of the Study
Primary Investigator, Lloyd Kilmer
8
The Davenport Community
School District Study
 The purpose of this study was to investigate the
perceptions of the School Administrative Manager
(SAM) system implemented in the Davenport
Community Schools.
 The first phase of the study was to conduct a survey of
the teachers, who work in the schools where SAMs are
part of the Administrative Team, on the managerial and
leadership impact of the system.
 Phase Two included conducting focus group interviews
with the SAMs and the principals to discover the
advantages and disadvantages to the interaction with,
and support offered, by the SAMs.
9
PORT COMMUNITY SCHOOLS AT A GLANCE
 Communities Served: DCSD serves the communities of Blue
Grass, Buffalo, Davenport, and Walcott. This total land area
covers 109 square miles.
 Facilities:
 4 High Schools
 4 Intermediate Schools
 2 K-8 Schools
 17 Elementary Schools
 4 Early Childhood Learning Centers
 Budget: A highly trained staff of financial experts maintains a
budget of over $200 million to ensure the effective use of
funds.
10
 Student Enrollment (preschool-12th grade) – 15,841
students (October 1, 2012 – Official Enrollment
Count Day)
 Student Diversity
 59% White
 18.7% Black of African-American
 12.1% Hispanic
 7.7% Multi-racial
 2% Asian
 0.4% American Indian or Alaskan Native
 0.1% Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
11
Participant Demographics
(Survey Data)
12
Teaching Assignment
of Teachers’ Surveyed
Teaching
Assignment
Elementary
Middle School
High School
Total
Number of
Teachers
231
102
0
333
Percentage
69.4%
30.6%
0%
100%
13
Teaching Assignment
of Teachers’ Surveyed
Years of Teaching
Experience
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
Over 20
Total
Elementary
Middle School
62
25
43
24
75
229
23
29
20
13
18
103
14
Quantitative Results
Primary Statistician, Bridget Sheng
15
About the SAM Survey
 Teacher perception of improvement and the extent of
improvement
 Two major areas
 Management
 Instructional Leadership
 Frequency
 Quality
 Measurement
 Agreement of improvement: SD, D, A, SA (strongly
disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
 Extent of improvement: none, a little, moderate, a lot
16
SAM Survey
 Management
 Support staff efficiency
 Building management
 Student supervision
 Discipline Management
 Facilitation of school Improvement
processes
 Instructional Leadership
 Frequency
 Quality
17
SAM Survey
 Instructional Leadership
 Feedback on teaching from formal and informal
observations
 Administrative support for student academic
needs
 Positive reinforcement on staff performance
 Job-embedded professional development
 Frequency
 Quality – additional two items
 Implementing Iowa PD model
 Teaching performance
18
SAM Survey Results
 Majority teachers agree or strongly agree with
improvement in management and instructional
leadership
 Teachers from intermediate schools gave
overwhelming positive responses (75%-90%)
 Teacher responses from elementary schools are
positive but less strong (58%-76%)
 For both groups, highest rating is in Management,
top rated management aspect is Facilitation of school
improvement processes
 Less positive in quality of instructional leadership,
least positive responses are from teachers of
elementary schools on effectiveness of implementing
Iowa PD model (58%)
19
SAM Survey Results
 In regards to the extent of improvement in
Management and Instructional Leadership
 Most teachers from intermediate schools perceive
moderate to great improvement (56%-80%)
 In management, over ¾ of intermediate school
teachers perceive moderate to great improvement in
student supervision (78%), discipline management
(75%), and facilitation of school improvement
processes (80%).
 In instructional leadership, over 2/3 of intermediate
school teachers perceive moderate to great
improvement in principal feedback (69-73%) and
administrative support of student academic needs
(68-70%).
20
SAM Survey Results
 Teacher responses from elementary schools in
regards to the extent of improvement are less
favorable compared to those from intermediate
schools, but majority of them perceive some
improvement.
 A third to half of them perceive moderate to great
improvement (33%-51%). The exception is in student
supervision where over 68% perceive moderate to
great improvement.
 Half of them perceive moderate to great improvement
in discipline management (50%), frequency and
quality of feedback (50-51%).
 In improving support staff efficiency, building
management, and in implementing Iowa PD model,
more elementary school teachers perceive a little
improvement than moderate to great improvement.
21
Qualitative Results--Principals
Stuart Yager
22
Analysis of Principal Focus Groups--Pros
 Focused on detailed time monitoring with SAM encouragement
 Awareness of threshold/balance between instructional
leadership and building management- so not to feel out of touch
with the management of the building
 Established a useful, trusting, confidential partnership between
the principal and the SAM
 Opportunity to model/do instructional leadership
 Improved relationship with teachers - focused on improving
instruction
 Realignment of job description/priorities -- order of contact -- not
principal first
23
Analysis of Principal Focus Groups--Cons
 Lack of principal involvement in selecting the SAM
 Being out of touch with the operational/management
side of the building
 Personality differences/management style differences
between principal and the SAM
 Lack of contact with difficult parents/students and the
perception not being traditional that you see the
principal first
 Slower (not directly involved with building and
student problems) communication of management
issues
The SAM is not for all principals - it takes a certain
leadership style/confidence to work with a SAM
24
Analysis of Principal Focus Groups--Overall
 Lack of principal involvement in selecting the SAM
 Being out of touch with the operational/management
side of the building
 Personality differences/management style differences
between principal and the SAM
 Lack of contact with difficult parents/students and the
perception not being traditional that you see the
principal first
 Slower (not directly involved with building and
student problems) communication of management
issues
The SAM is not for all principals - it takes a certain
leadership style/confidence to work with a SAM
25
Qualitative Results--SAMs
Lora Wolff
26
Analysis of SAM Focus Groups--Pros
 All of the SAMs had had previous leadership roles
which made the transition somewhat easier
 Principals are now getting into the classroom more
regularly
 Manage the principal’s daily calendar (scheduling)
 Office operations have become more efficient
 Change in operations--Parents ask to speak to the
SAM rather than the principal
27
Analysis of SAM Focus Groups--Cons
 Period of adjustment during the first year of the
Principal/SAM relationship
 Communication was difficult—not all information was
relayed to the principal/SAM
 Principals have varying levels of comfort in turning
over responsibilities to SAM
 Communication—Principal/SAM need to find the best
modes to communicate
 Office support staff needs to be trained in the process
28
Analysis of SAM Focus Groups--Overall
 Need to learn about strict confidence
 So much to learn—processes, management, special
education, evaluation, law, district policies
 Personality differences/management style differences
between principal and the SAM
 Long hours—come early, stay late
 Being a SAM is “extremely rewarding”
 Gaining skills to be an effective administrator
29
Closing Remarks
 SAM is a process
 Redefines the role of principal
 “We have not found a single case of a
school improving its student achievement
record in the absence of talented
leadership.” (How Leadership Affects
Student Learning)
 Next Steps: Analyze student achievement
over time in schools where there is a SAM
30
Final Report
 If you’d like a copy of the final report,
please…
 leave a business card or
 include your email address on the
sign-up up sheet or
 email me (ll-wolff@wiu.edu)
31
Questions…
….Comments
32
Contact us at:
Lloyd
Bridget
Stuart
Lora
 Lloyd Kilmer, lc-kilmer@wiu.edu
 Bridget Sheng, zb-sheng@wiu.edu
 Stuart Yager, so-yager@wiu.edu
 Lora Wolff, ll-wolff@wiu.edu
33
Resources

Alternative school administration study. (2005, October). Leading Educational Achievement in Districts, a Wallace Foundation
Initiative.

ASAS time/task analysis. (2007).

Fact sheet: National school administration manager project.

Frequently asked Questions: National school administration manager project. The Wallace Foundation.

Haslam, M. & B. Turnbull. (2011, August). Costs of participation in the school administration manager (SAM) process. NY: Policy
Studies Associates, Inc.

How principals manage their time is key to improving instruction in their schools. Retrieved from
http://www.ernweb.com/public/1175print.cfm

Iowa SAM. Iowa School Administration Manager Program.

Leithwood, K., K. Louis, S. Anderson & K. Wahlstrom. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. The Wallace Foundation.

The School principal as leader: Guiding Schools to better teaching and learning. (2012, January). The Wallace Foundation.

Shellinger, Mark. Getting Ready.

Turnbull, B., R. White, and E. Arcaira. (2010, August). “Achievement trends in schools with school administration managers (SAMs).
NY: Policy Studies Associates, Inc.

Turnbull, B., E. Arcaira, & B. Sinclair. (2011, August). Implementation of the national SAM innovation object: A comparison of project
designs. NY: Policy Studies Associates, Inc.

Turnbull, B. M. Haslam, E. Arcaira, D. Riley, B. Sinclair, & S. Coleman. (2009, December). Evaluation of the school administration
manager project. NY; Policy Studies Associates, Inc.
34