Kim BantaBrennon Sapp

The Kenton County School DistrictUniversity of Louisville

ASCD

The Ripple EffectAn overview—Video (DVD)

Why did we do this? What were we like? Where did this approach come from?Details of Treatments/Behaviors:

Summer meetingsSnapshotsData ReviewsQIR Document

OutcomesUnintentional Outcomes Finally – Kim describes what it is like working

with an obsessive compulsive technology workaholic.

Why did we do this? What were we like?

Pretty Good School Scores are Flat-Lining Student Demographics Changing Schools of Study/Small Learning

CommunitiesLEHHS (Law Education Health Human

Services)STEM (Science Technology Engineering &

Math)VPAM (Visual Performing Arts & Media)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Reading 79.9 86.8 86.0 93.9 90.2

Math 81.0 80.1 86.3 88.1 78.9

Science 71.5 74.6 73.2 77.8 77.2

Social Studies 82.4 82.4 83.9 87.4 82.1

Arts & Humanities 83.1 79.0 84.9 99.5 94.7

Pract. Living/Voc Stud 89.1 89.2 87.8 90.6 92.2

Writing Portfolio62.1 70.8 71.9

67.2 76.6

On-Demand Writing 50.4 76.9

Total 77.2 79.8 81.3 83.5 83.1

RANKING SCHNAME DISTNAME Academic Ind

1 Dupont Manual High School Jefferson County 109.7

2 Beechwood High School Beechwood Independent 106.3

3 Brown School Jefferson County 103.8

4 Louisville Male High School Jefferson County 103.2

5 Highlands High School Fort Thomas Independent 99.6

6 North Oldham High School Oldham County 97.9

7 Frederick Fraize High School Cloverport Independent 95.8

8 South Oldham High School Oldham County 95.1

9 Walton-Verona High School Walton-Verona Independent 94.4

10 Model Laboratory High School Madison County 93.8

48 Dixie Heights High School Kenton County 83.1

232 Knox Central High School Knox County 59.3

233 Providence Elementary School Providence Independent 57.4

234 Iroquois High School Magnet Career Aca Jefferson County 57.3

235Shawnee High School Magnet Career

AcademJefferson County 56.4

236 Western MST Magnet High School Jefferson County 44.3

Grad Year Composite Verbal Math Writing

(2003) 144 47 48 48.5

(2004) 153 49.5 51.5 51.5

(2005) 146 47.4 50.3 48.3

(2006) 144 47.4 49.3 47.2

(2007) 147 48.9 51.2 46.7

(2008) 165 50.6 52.5 48.5

Where did this approach come from?A review of hundreds of interventions/

strategies Walkthroughs?e-walksObservations (predictable in their

uselessness)Why not use a more “student-centered”

model?

Alig-Meilcarek, J. (2003). A model of school success: Instructional leadership, academic press, and student achievement. Ohio State University. Ainsworth, L., Almeida, L., Davies. A., Dufour, R., Greeg, L., Guskey, T., Marzano, R., O’Connor, K., Stiggins, R., White, S., Wiliam, D., & Reeves, D. (2007). Ahead of the curve: The

power of assessment to transform teaching and learning. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Bennis, W & Biederman, P. W. (1998). Organizing Genius. Berkeley, CA:Perseus Books. Berry, J., Beach, R. (2007). K-12 leadership and the educational administration curriculum: A theory of preparation. Education Leadership: National Council of Professionals of

Education Administration. Black, S. (2007). Making the rounds. American School Board Journal, 194 (12), 40-45. Blanchard, K.& Miller, M. (2004). The secret: What great leaders know and do. New York: Berrett-Koehler. Brand, S., Felner, R., Shim, M., Seitsinger, A. & Dumas, T. (2003). Middle school improvement and reform: development and validation of a school-level assessment of climate,

cultural pluralism, and school safety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (3), 570-588. Connors, N., Streams. J. (2000). If you don’t feed the teacher they eat the students. Nashville, TN: Incentive Publications. Cushman, K, & Delpit, L (2005). Fires in the bathroom: advice for teachers from high school students. New York: new press. Danielson, C., (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Downey, C., Steffy, B., English, F., Frase, L., Poston, W. (2004). The three-minute classroom walk-through: Changing school supervisory practice one teacher at a time.

California:Corwin Press. Faber, A. & Mazlish, E. (2005). How to talk so teens will listen and listen so teens will talk. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Felner, R., Favazza, A., Shim, M., Brand, S., Gu, K., & Noonan, N. (2001) Whole school improvement and restructuring as prevention and promotion: lessons from STEP and the project

on high performance learning communities. Journal of School Psychology, 39 (2), 177-202. Felner, R. & Angela A. (1988). The school transitional environment project: An ecological intervention and evaluation. Richard H. Price and Raymond P. Lorion (eds.). 14 Ounces of

Prevention: A Casebook for Practitioners. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association. Felner, R., Ginter, M., & Primavera, J. (1987). Primary prevention during school transitions: Social support and environmental structure. American Journal of Community Psychology,

10 (3), 277-290. Felner, R., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., & Flowers, N. (1997) The project on high performance learning communities: Applying the land-grant model to school reform. Phi Delta Kappa, 78

(7), 520-528. Felner, R., Jackson, A., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., & Flowers, N. (1997). The impact of the school reform for the middle years. Phi Delta Kappan, 78 (7), 528-532, 541-550. Felner, R., Seitsinger, A., Brand, S., Burns A. & Bolton, N. (2007). Creating small learning communities: lessons from the project on high-performing learning communities about

“what works” in creating productive, developmentally enhancing, learning contexts. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 209 – 221. Felner, R., Seitsinger, A., Brand, S., Burns, A., & Bolton, N. (2008). Creating a statewide educational data system for accountability and improvement: a comprehensive information

and assessment system for making evidence-based change at school, district, and policy levels: increasing psychology’s contribution to education. Psychology in the Schools, 45 (3), 235-256.

Fullan, M. (2005). Turnaround leadership. The Educational Forum, 69 (2), 174-181. Ginsberg, M.B. (2001).By the numbers. Journal of Staff Development. 22, 44-47.  Glanz, J., Shulman, V., & Sullivan, S. (2007). Proceedings from AERA ‘07. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.  Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessign the instructional management behavior of principals. Elementary School Journal, 86, 217-247.  Halverson, R., Kelley, C., Kimball, S. (2004). Implementing Teacher Evaluation Systems:  How Principals Make Sense of complex Artifacts to Shape Local Instructional Practice.

Educational Administration, Policy and Reform: Research and Measurement Research and Theory in Educational Administration, (3).  Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close the gap. Thinking K-16, 3 (2).  Hirsch, E.D. (1999). The schools we need and why we don't have them. New York: Bantum.  Hoff, D. (2008). Study of small high schools yields little on achievement. Education Week, 27 (38), 10.  Kerr, N., Messe', L., Park, E. & Sambolec, E. (2008). Psychological Mechanisms Underlying the Köhler Motivation Gain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33 (6), 828-841.  Lee, V., Dedrick, R., & Smith, J. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools on teachers' efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190-208.  Lezotte, L. (2001). Revolutionary and evolutionary: the effective schools movement. Effective Schools Products, LTD.  Leithwood, K., (1992). A move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49 (5), 8-12.  Marks, H., Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly,

39;370.  Marshall Memo 231 (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2008 from Marshall Memo Web site: http://www.marshallmemo.com/headlines.php  Marshall, K. (2008). Is supervising the heck out of teachers the answer? Education Week, 27(36), 23-25.  Marshall, K. (2006). What’s a principal to do?: When you can’t do it all, what are the highest-leverage activities? Education Week, 26 (4), 36-37.  Marshall, K. (2003). Recovering from HSPS (hyperactive superficial principal syndrome): A progress report. Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (9), 701-709.  O'Hanlon, J. & Mortensen, L. (1980). Making teacher evaluation work. The Journal of Higher Education, 51, 664-672.  Patterson, J. & Patterson J. (2004). Sharing the lead: Teacher leaders can play a vital role in creating a resilient school culture. Educational Leadership, 61 (7), 74-87.  Price, R. H., Cowen, E. L., Lorion, R. P. & Ramos-McKay, J. (1988). Fourteen ounces of prevention: a casebook for practitioners. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.  Protheroe, N. (2008).Teacher efficacy: what is it and does it matter? Principal, 87, 42-45.  Raudenbush, S., Rowan, V. & Cheong., Y (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150-167.  Rowan, B., Chiang, F. & Miller, R. (1997). Using research on employees' performance to study the effects of teachers on students' achievement. Sociology of Education, 70, 256-284.  Sarason, (1990). School context: Bridge or barrier to change. Southwest Educational Developmental Laboratory.  Sindelar, P., Shearer, D., Yendol-Hoppey, D., Leibert, T. (2006). The sustainability of inclusive school reform. Exceptional Children, 72 (3), 317-331.  Sutton, R. (2007). The no asshole rule: Building a civilized workplace and surviving one that isn't. New York: Warner Books.  Toch, T. & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: teacher evaluation in public education. Education Sector Reports, January, 2008.  Wagner, C. (2006). The school leader’s tool for assessing and improving school culture. Principal Leadership, 7 (4), 41-44.  Wagner, T., Kegan, R., (2006). Change leadership: practical guide to transforming our schools. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.  Whitaker, T. (2003). What great principals do differently: Fifteen things that matter most. New York: Eye on Education.  Wilson, R. (1986). Improving faculty teaching: effective use of student evaluations and consultants. The Journal of Higher Education, 57, 196-211.

Where did this approach come from?A review of hundreds of interventions/

strategies Walkthroughs?e-walksFormal Observations (predictable in their

uselessness)Why not use a more “student-centered”

model?

Treatments/Behaviors(see handout)Summer meetings

One hour (yes a full hour each) One on one . . . Or. . . Four on one Deliberate, honest, straight forward

Snapshots (the backbone) Become a part of the classroom 5 to 10 minutes Often - Tracking Document Calibration Meetings/Expert Review – Calibration

Document Student Interviews

Data Reviews – Samples Periodically, (at least three times a year) Grades, discipline, state scores. . . Get to see everyone's data

QIR Document (see handout)

Current Data on Snap Shots

Treatments/Behaviors(see handout)Summer meetings

One hour (yes a full hour each) One on one . . . Or. . . Four on one Deliberate, honest, straight forward

Snapshots (the backbone) Become a part of the classroom 5 to 10 minutes Often - Tracking Document Calibration Meetings/Expert Review – Calibration

Document Student Interviews

Data Reviews – Samples Periodically, (at least three times a year) Grades, discipline, state scores. . . Get to see everyone's data

QIR Document (see handout)

See Handout

Down Page

See Handout

Up Page

Treatments/Behaviors(see handout)Summer meetings

One hour (yes a full hour each) One on one . . . Or. . . Four on one Deliberate, honest, straight forward

Snapshots (the backbone) Become a part of the classroom 5 to 10 minutes Often - Tracking Document Calibration Meetings/Expert Review – Calibration

Document Student Interviews

Data Reviews - Samples Periodically, (at least three times a year) Grades, discipline, state scores. . . Get to see everyone's data

QIR Document (see handout)

Teacher 1

Teacher 14

Discipline Infractions – Most to Least

% of A % of B % of C % of D % of F

Discipline Infractions

(Total) Teacher34% 28% 20% 14% 4% 47 Teacher 134% 24% 15% 9% 18% 31 Teacher 254% 29% 5% 8% 5% 28 Teacher 346% 19% 16% 6% 13% 28 Teacher 425% 29% 14% 16% 17% 25 Teacher 541% 30% 15% 2% 13% 24 Teacher 641% 25% 14% 15% 5% 24 Teacher 727% 28% 20% 13% 12% 24 Teacher 852% 20% 13% 9% 7% 22 Teacher 9

33% 34% 19% 9% 5% 22 Teacher 10

32% 29% 15% 15% 10% 20 Teacher 11

30% 30% 23% 8% 9% 19 Teacher 12

37% 34% 10% 11% 10% 17 Teacher 13

37% 27% 25% 6% 6% 16 Teacher 14

23% 40% 17% 12% 9% 16 Teacher 15

14% 23% 20% 34% 9% 15 Teacher 16

Failures-Most to Least% of A % of B % of C % of D % of F

Discipline Infractions

(Total) Teacher25% 20% 23% 13% 19% 3 Teacher 4334% 24% 15% 9% 18% 31 Teacher 225% 29% 14% 16% 17% 25 Teacher 551% 20% 9% 3% 16% 0 Teacher 5519% 34% 25% 8% 14% 6 Teacher 3546% 19% 16% 6% 13% 28 Teacher 441% 30% 15% 2% 13% 24 Teacher 627% 28% 20% 13% 12% 24 Teacher 823% 23% 29% 14% 10% 12 Teacher 2123% 26% 24% 16% 10% 7 Teacher 3237% 34% 10% 11% 10% 17 Teacher 1332% 29% 15% 15% 10% 20 Teacher 1123% 40% 17% 12% 9% 16 Teacher 1530% 30% 23% 8% 9% 19 Teacher 1221% 29% 21% 19% 9% 11 Teacher 2214% 23% 20% 34% 9% 15 Teacher 1641% 29% 18% 4% 8% 8 Teacher 31

Back Treatments & Behaviors

Treatments/Behaviors(see handout)Summer meetings

One hour (yes a full hour each) One on one . . . Or. . . Four on one Deliberate, honest, straight forward

Snapshots (the backbone) Become a part of the classroom 5 to 10 minutes Often - Tracking Document Calibration Meetings/Expert Review – Calibration

Document Student Interviews

Data Reviews - Samples Periodically, (at least three times a year) Grades, discipline, state scores. . . Get to see everyone's data

QIR Documents (see handout)

OutcomesImprove teacher awareness

Improved teacher performance

Improved student performance

Improve school culture

QIR Excel Sheet

OutcomesImprove teacher awareness

Improved teacher performance

Improved student performance

Improve school culture

QIR Excel Sheet

Total Population A B C D FSpring 02-03 31.40% 26.60% 23.00% 10.90% 7.90%

Fall 03-04 31.30% 29.10% 20.30% 10.90% 8.20%Spring 03-04 34.20% 25.00% 20.20% 8.80% 11.50%

Fall 04-05 31.50% 28.60% 21.80% 9.60% 8.10%Spring 04-05 34.00% 28.20% 20.40% 9.30% 7.70%

Fall 05-06 31.70% 28.00% 20.60% 9.70% 9.40%Spring 05-06 32.60% 27.40% 20.00% 10.40% 8.90%

Fall 06-07 33.20% 28.70% 20.60% 9.10% 8.00%Spring 06-07 37.60% 28.30% 17.00% 7.50% 8.70%1st Tri 07-08 36.20% 29.90% 18.20% 9.10% 6.70%2nd Tri 07-08 33.20% 28.00% 20.40% 10.80% 7.60%3rd Tri 07-08 39.50% 27.20% 17.80% 9.00% 6.50%1st Tri 08-09 41.80% 29.30% 15.90% 7.60% 4.40%2nd Tri 08-09 39.11% 27.48% 18.08% 8.33% 6.99%

Unintentional OutcomesDrop in disciplineMuch more enjoyment in jobYou learn things are not as you thought they were

(good and bad)Culture

Teachers ask for you to come inStudents expect you to interact

Parent discussions are much differentThe observation process becomes more realProfessional development becomes passéThe “unmentionables”

Discipline Infractions

Attendance Letters

Aggressive to School Employee Defiance

Failure to Comply with

Discipline Fights Harassment

2003-2004 460 3 378 251 35 51

2004-2005 435 18 132 292 26 16

2005-2006 202 37 138 292 31 13

2006-2007 978 25 211 357 46 86

2007-2008 736 28 191 150 47 41

2008-2009* 266 13 108 104 17 22

Discipline Infractions Profanity

Tardies & Skipping Tobacco

Disorderly Conduct

Repeat Violations Total

2003-2004 122 1083 50 77   2370

2004-2005 72 1002 29 153 16 2422

2005-2006 76 767 39 153 62 1994

2006-2007 46 739 92 268 127 2976

2007-2008 60 765 34 203 193 2565

2008-2009* 44 348 45 73 197 1436

*Data as of April 13th of given year

Discipline Infractions Male Female Fresh Soph Jr Sr2003-2004 1521 849 675 625 591 4782004-2005 1438 984 715 698 513 4962005-2006 1298 696 549 52 453 4602006-2007 1749 688 887 625 446 4792007-2008 1738 827 824 679 467 5952008-2009* 818 618 557 396 282 201

*Data as of April 13th of given year

Unintentional OutcomesDrop in disciplineMuch more enjoyment in jobYou learn things are not as you thought they were

(good and bad)Culture

Teachers ask for you to come inStudents expect you to interact

Parent discussions are much differentThe observation process becomes more realProfessional development becomes passéThe “unmentionables”

Kim describes what it is like working with an obsessive compulsive technology workaholicWonderfulGreatFunLoveHarmony“I see skies . . Of blue. . . “

Contact InfoDixie Heights High School

3o10 Dixie HighwayCrestview Hills, KY 41017

Kim.banta@kenton.kyschools.usBrennon.sapp@gmail.com

www.bsapp.com