SAELP Scoop
February Edition
Save the Date
- March 1st, 2007 – SAELP Proposals for CTAG Conference Due
- Tell one, Tell All!!! OALA Cultural Competency Conference, February 10th, 2007 7:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. (see Speakers include: Francisco Reveles and Vicki Phillips. Workshops topics range from “Latino Literature for Secondary Level” to “Supporting Increased Participation of Latino Families”. Workshop presenters include practioners from HillsboroSchool District, Beaverton SD SAELP work, Springfield SAELP, ODE, Portland Schools Foundation, PortlandState, Lewis and Clark and many more. REGISTER NOW!!!
- ODE Closing the Achievement Gap Conference, May 11th
SAELP Only Pre-Conference at DoubleTreeMay 10th1:00 – 7:00 p.m. with dinner included.
More details to come.
- Minority Student Achievement Network Conference (MSAN) “Opening Doors and Raising the Roof”June 25th-26th (see for more conference and read below to learn more about MSAN) Register Now!
Resource Links and Reports
School Leadership Includes Family Involvement: How can professional development encourage positive attitudes and active outreach to families?Research-based tools for preparing educators to engage families
Understanding Science Leadership Academies: Understanding Science’s five-day Leadership Academies prepare professional developers, teacher leaders, and teacher educators to effectively lead Understanding Science courses for elementary and middle school teachers at their site.
More than a horse race: A guide to international tests of student achievement:
According to a new report from the Center for Public Education, much of what the public hears about the performance of U.S. kids against their international peers comes from one of two camps: the Chicken Littles who claim our kids are failing and the nation’s economic sky is falling as a result; or the Dr. Panglosses who dismiss the scores as irrelevant because American schools are different and truly the best of all possible worlds. The reality is more complex…
Writing Next:Effective Strategies to Promote Adolescent Writing in Middle and High School
Spotlight on Oregon Education Leadership Standards
Inclusive Leadership
Standard 4: Inclusive Practice
Inclusive Leaders are educational leaders who have the knowledge, ability and cultural competence to ensure the success of all students by collaboration with families and other community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs and mobilizing community resources in order to demonstrate and promote ethical standards of democracy, equity, diversity, excellence and to promote communication among diverse groups.
Inclusive Leaders…..
- Collaborate with families and other community members:
- Use public information and research-based knowledge of issues and trends to collaborate with community members and community organizations to have a positive affect on student learning.
- Apply an understanding of community relations models, marketing strategies and processes, data driven decision-making, and communication theory to craft frameworks for school, business, community, government, and higher education partnerships.
- Develop and implement a plan for nurturing relationships with community leaders
- Involve community members, groups, and other stakeholders in district decision-making,
- Integrate health, social, and other services in the schools to address student and family conditions that affect learning.
- Reflect knowledge of effective media relations and that models effective media relations practices.
- Reinforces for district staff a belief that families have the best interests of their children in mind.
- Promote maximum involvement with, and visibility within the community.
- Effectively and appropriately assess, research, and plan for diverse district and community conditions
- Use district resources to the community to solve issues of joint concern.
T
The Origins of the SAELP Focus on K-12 Literacy and Cultural Competency
In the Fall of 2003, at the cusp of SAELP II’s commencement, Consortium members sat to discuss what key focus areas the leadership initiative should consider. Consortium members agreed that the leadership strategies should: (a) integrate leadership development with conditions: feasibility, measurability and sustainability; (b) connect leadership to learning; and (c) challenge the status quo. They further realized the importance of breaking down the barriers between being a teacher and being an administrator recognizing that for true leadership strategies to work , teachers need to be more involved in leadership and leaders need to be more involved in teaching/learning functions. All of these things were laid out as being essential for creating adaptive change that impacts the system and influences student achievement. The Consortium broke out into Sub-Committees to research current policies and practices throughout the U.S that might be the focus of Oregon’s Leadership Strategies. After much deliberation and research the idea of Literacy and Cultural Competency began to crystallize resembling the following revolutionary plan:
SAELP Breakthrough Idea #1: Redesign education leadership policy, practice, condition, and licensure to demonstrate enhanced effectiveness for cultural competency and equity
Would be implemented by statewide strategies such as
Leadership Development* Conditions*
Would be reinforced by district strategies such as
Would be supported by school practices such as
Would lead to classroom practices such as
Which will result in Improved Student Achievement
SAELP Breakthrough Idea #2: Enhance educational leadership to demonstrate the improvement of K- 12 literacy achievement for all Oregon students
Would be implemented by statewide strategies such as
Leadership Development* Conditions*
Would be reinforced by district strategies such as
Would be supported by school practices such as
Would lead to classroom practices such as
Which will result in Improved Student Achievement
A Snapshot of Cohesive Leadership in Oregon
Executive Summary
In 2003, faced with fiscal crisis and budget shortfall, Oregon joined the ranks of fifteen other states to take on the challenge of developing policy and practice for school and district leadership to create effective learning environments for Oregon students. Oregon recognized what many national studies now show: Quality leaders have a positive impact on student achievement. But what does quality leadership and leadership development look like? What partnerships are necessary to ensure that support, accountability and evaluation are coherent and able to filter down through the system? What indicators should leaders look at that contribute to improved student outcomes? This report analyzes how far Oregon has come in meeting the “Leadership challenge”. It illuminates a cohesive system of leadership development that operates on a shared understanding of what priorities, collaboration, and variability are necessary to allow for quality leadership development.
System and Standards
Oregon’s Leadership system capitalizes on the synergy of district work and state level partnerships with outside agencies. All groups are guided by state-level standards of leadership that were updated in 2004 and written into administrative law early in 2005. These revised “Oregon Standards”are a derivative of the Education Leadership Constituency Council Standards (ELCC) first approved in 1987 and then rewritten in 1997 to reflect changes in education focus.
Oregon’s administrative standards, which build upon the ELCC standards, emphasizethe importance of cultural proficient practice in the application of seven critical features of leadership that consist of Visionary Leadership, Instructional Improvement; Effective Management; Inclusive Practice; Ethical Leadership; Socio-Political Understanding; and Practical Experience. Candidate competency in each of these standards as verified through work plans and site visits, is necessary in order for agencies (including public and private universities) issuing Administrative Licenses to recommend candidates for licensure. These are the consistent policy lever and foundation in all leadership work taking place in the state.
Housed in the Department of Education, Oregon SAELP has created strategic partnerships with education agencies, non-profits and research groups to provide expertise and consultation to school and district leaders. These partnerships are strategic both in their recondite focus and in their ability to mobilize, influence, and collect data on the needs of specific interest groups within the leadership community. These partnerships include professional organizations of teachers, school boards, school and district administrators, universities, minority administrators and the state licensing board. Representatives from each autonomous organization are brought together through the SAELP Consortium where they work collaboratively on shaping state policy and examining district level leadership initiatives and needs.
As a result, the SAELP Consortium represents the myriad of stakeholders who contribute to and participate in leadership development. Their collaboration has enabled Oregon SAELP to shape a strategic through-line that is aligned with standards, informed by school and district needs and driven by a focus on system change. This “through-line” objective is to develop “culturally competent” leaders and to strengthen PK-12 literacy proficiency resulting in improved academic achievement and student success.
As a means of moving policy to practice, SAELP, in addition to the partnerships established with state-level groups, created strategic networks with districts. These districts were allocated resources to assist them in creating conditions that support leadership and leadership development at the school and district level. Eight of the districts reviewed for this report are “demonstration districts” and receive financial support for their leadership work. One of them, Eugene, is a “Lead District” and receives funds directly from Wallace. An additional three districts volunteered to be part of the network upon seeing what was happening in neighboring districts. While they are not financially supported, they have access to the same research and professional development opportunities the demonstration and lead districts are privy to. Their inclusion was orchestrated through a work plan submission and presentation culminating in a vote by the SAELP Consortium.
Findings
This report found that by creating conditions of Leadership, outcomes include: professional development programs that reach leaders at various stages of development; hiring practices that are inclusive and intentional; and evaluation strategies that create accountability for quality leaders and professional development programs. While there was variability in how programs were administered and organized, all districts were consistent in their outcomes (not sure what this means), their focus on academic indicators (specifically PK-12 Literacy) and their desire to use data to inform their decision making processes to collectively nurture quality leaders.
Training/Professional Development Programs
All districts have implemented professional development programs that target current leaders and aspiring leaders. Approximately 70%, primarily larger districts, make an additional effort to target new leaders for support. All of them use coaching/mentoring as one method of doing so. Most compliment this with some form of additional training. Although all districts do not facilitate training that target this group, COSA a state partner of SAELP, does offer this service. Most training is delivered in workshop format though many districts (more than 50%) also rely heavily on learning communities to digest information and make it meaningful in practice. Additional leadership development takes place in the form of book groups, work sessions and structured meetings. 100% of districts hold at least one training session per quarter. Approximately 90% of the districts make attendance mandatory for all these session and more than half of the districts invite all administrators within the district to attend. For example, in Portland, it is mandatory that all building administrators attend monthly professional development sessions.
Variation was found in who facilitates these sessions. Districts tended to employ a method of either using outside experts or in-house experts to lead. While there was a lack of consistency between districts in regards to which method was used, there was consistency within districts. Some districts relied heavily on outside experts for all levels of leadership development and others looked almost exclusively to in-house specialists. Regardless of who facilitated however, all districts provided professional development at a convenient location within the district.
Hiring Practices
Fifty percent of Oregon SAELP districts have finished or are currently working on revised hiring policies that reflect the change in administrative standards most notably the cultural proficiency of building administrators. Many of these districts now include an interview question regarding cultural proficiency and more than two-thirds of them are intentional in recruiting a diverse applicant pool. Beaverton school district has gone one step further by providing workshops to school leaders and hiring teams on what unintentional biases may look like and how best to confront them in a way that ensure equity for all applicants.
Evaluation
This report found that although all districts evaluate their leadership work, the majority are focused on professional development program evaluation while there appears to be increasing attention to evaluating administrators themselves.
Many Oregon SAELP districts have also worked to develop performance indicators that are aligned with state standards and can be used to assess leadership effectiveness. There is variation by district on the formality of the evaluation rubric used. While some districts allow for self-evaluations, others rely heavily on peer observation and teacher input. All of these evaluations have state standards embedded in their criteria. Eugene, for example, has gone a step further by using the exact language of the standards and extracting performance indicators based on the indicators articulated in the original legislation. They then give performance descriptors at a Develops, Meets and Exceeds level.
In contrast, 90% of SAELP districts have created evaluations for the professional development programs and workshops they administer. Many include pre and post assessments and most use this feedback to create future professional development activity.
Conclusion
In summary, while Oregon has demonstrated substantial growth in leadership development activity, features of a cohesive leadership system continue to be enhanced. State professional development, as seen through the SAELP Leadership Institutes, is both designed by district practitioners and extended at the district level by SAELP district teams and partners. These activities in conjunction with administrative licensure, and professional learning programs are guided by the state’s ELLC standards. They serve as the policy foundation and institutional anchor for all leadership work.In addition, with a strategic focus on cultural competency and K-12 Literacy Proficiency, Oregon takes the work a step further in ensuring that all leadership work is tethered to classroom instruction.The end result is an education communitywho sees theeducational achievement of all studentsas the mark of a strong school/district leader.
------
Quote of the Month:
“In organizations, goals erode because of low tolerance for emotional tension. Nobody wants to be the messenger with bad news. The easiest path is to just pretend there is no bad news, or better yet, declare ‘victory’- to redefine the bad news as not so bad by lowering the standard against which it is judged. The dynamics of emotional tension exist at all levels of human activity. They are the dynamics of compromise, the path of mediocrity. As Somerset Maugham said, “Only mediocre people are always at their best”…truly creative people use the gap between vision and current reality to generate energy for change”
-Peter Senge, MIT
1