In response to an increasing emphasis on instructional leadership and school achievement, the School Administration Manager (SAM) model was introduced as a change strategy to release principals from managerial responsibilities so that more time can be devoted to instructional leadership. The study collected and analyzed survey and focus group interview data to evaluate the impact of SAMs on principals’ management and instructional leadership. In addition, the study examined if school level (elementary or middle school) affects the impact of SAMs. Results illustrate SAMs have a positive impact on management and instructional leadership and the impact was stronger at the middle school level.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
CreswellJ. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
Darling-HammondL., LaPointeM., MeyersonD., OrrM. T., & CohenC. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs.Stanford University: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
4.
EdmondsR. P. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15–24.
5.
FirestoneW. A., & HerriottR. E. (1982). Prescriptions for effective elementary schools don't fit secondary schools. Educational Leadership, 40(3), 51–53.
6.
GrigsbyB., SchumacherG., DecmanJ., & SimieouF. (Summer 2010). A principal's dilemma: Instructional leader or manager. Academic Leadership, 8(3), 1–5.
7.
GrissomJ. A., LoebS., & MasterB. (2013). Effective Instructional Time Use for School Leaders: Longitudinal Evidence from Observations of Principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433–444.
8.
HallingerP. (1990). Principal instructional management rating scale.Sarasota, FL: Leading Development Associates.
9.
HallingerP. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221–239.
10.
HallingerP. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142.
11.
HallingerP. (2012). A data-driven approach to assess and develop instructional leadership with the PIMRS. In ShenJ. (Ed.), Tools for improving principals’ work (pp. 47–69). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
12.
HallingerP., & HeckR. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191.
13.
HallingerP., & HeckR. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 30(2), 55–110.
14.
HallingerP., & MurphyJ. F. (2013). Running on empty? Finding the time and capacity to lead learning. NASSP Bulletin, 97(1), 5–21.
15.
HanushekE. A., PetersonP. E., & WossemannL. (2012). Achievement Growth: International and U. S. State Trends in Student Performance.Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard's Program on Education Policy and Governance & Education Next.
16.
HattieJ. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
HorngE. L., KlasikD., & LoebS. (2010). Principals’ time use and effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491–523.
18.
HullJ. (2007). More than a horse race: A guide on international tests of student achievement.Alexandria, VA: Center for Public Education.
19.
KruegerR. A., & CaseyM. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
LeithwoodK., & JantziD. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496–528.
21.
LeithwoodK., LouisK. S., AndersonS., & WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning.New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
22.
LouisK. S., LeithwoodK., WahlstromK. L., & AndersonS. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings.St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.
23.
MarksH. M., & PrintyS. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397.
24.
MayH., HuffJ., & GoldringE. B. (2012). A longitudinal study of principal's activities and school performance. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 417–439.
25.
MayH., & SupovitzJ. A. (2011). The scope of principal efforts to improve instruction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 332–352.
26.
National SAM Innovation Project. (n.d.).SAM Introduction. [Brochure]. Louisville, KY: Author.
27.
NettlesS. M., & HerringtonC. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 724–736.
28.
NeumerskiC. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here?Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310–347.
29.
RobinsonV. M. J., LloydC. A., & RoweK. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.
30.
School Administrators of Iowa. (n.d.).Iowa SAMS. [Brochure]. Des Moines, IA: Author.
31.
ShellingerM. (2005). Alternative administration study. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED490688).
32.
SpillaneJ. P., HalversonR., & DiamondJ. B. (2004). Toward a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(1), 3–34.
33.
SupovitzJ. A., SirinidesP., & MayH. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56.
34.
TurnbullB. J., ArcairaE., SinclairB. (2011). Implementation of the National SAM Innovation Project: A Comparison of Project Designs.Washington, DC: Policy Study Associates.
35.
WatersT., MarzanoR. J., and McNultyB. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement.Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
36.
WenlingskyH. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12), 1–30.
37.
WahlstromK. (2012). An up-close view of instructional leadership: A grounded analysis. In LeithwoodK., & LouisK. S. (Eds.), Linking Leadership to Student Learning (pp. 68–86). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
38.
WitziersB., BoskerR. J., & KrugerM. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(5), 398–425.
