The Role Of Central Office During The Intervention ( Rti ) Change Initiative At Florence Middle School ( Fms )

The ever-changing landscape of education and school accountability has given rise to a renewed focus on shared leadership. In the past, the principal was viewed as the primary decision maker within a school. However, Glickman (1989) points out that it is impossible for school principals to effectively complete all the necessary instructional and managerial tasks within schools. He contends that some teachers have more leadership abilities than the actual administrators and that “in successful schools, principals aren’t threatened by the wisdom of others, instead, they cherish it by distributing leadership” (Glickman, 1989, p. 8).

So because of the lack of state and district support, leadership at the school level does not have the ability or the right setting to lead school improvement efficiently and effectively. This results in leadership trying to take an attitude of enforcing a top down approach with the policies and procedures placed in their hands and then defining them with a lack of focus. On the other hand, there is leadership with no clear direction or support from above, but expected to achieve the same unrealistic results.

Achieving a school district’s mission and vision requires the commitment of its stakeholders. In order to involve them in the process, it is necessary for educational leaders to “motivate staff, parents, students, board and community members” (Educational Leadership Constituencies Council, 2002, p. 4). The transformational leadership theory emphasizes the importance of educational leaders acting as role-models in order to motivate and inspire the school community. This approach has the potential to involve all stakeholders, leading to increased student success (Bush, 2007). The Assistant Director of Special Education in Northwest ISD directly supervised the school district’s assessment staff. Her education, experience, and passion set an example for her subordinates, stimulating them to achieve more, leading to her promotion to Executive Director of Student Services.

According to former Indiana state superintendent of schools Dr. Suellen Reed, “We know from our research that there’s no turnaround school without a turnaround principal” (as cited in Gammil, 2007, para. 2), further supporting the fact that “school leaders have an essential role in cultivating a positive school culture in public schools” (Peterson and Deal, 2002, p.30). However, it is imperative to improve our understanding as to how principal leadership impacts the school culture in high poverty schools to ensure that all children receive a quality education, regardless of zip code, in an environment conducive to learning. The six measured factors are as follows:

ISLLC 2008 Standard 1: An education leader promotes the success of every student by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by all stakeholders.

Implementing interventions that includes hiring a school social worker to provide the needed support for those students struggling to meet the academic requirements may contribute to having less disruptive behaviors in the school. The overall program goal for male students attending RMMS is to decrease suspensions and expulsions, while promoting different disciplinary approaches to boost their academics success and

The results were used to review students’ progress and to determine which concepts needed to be worked on. Most schools are using more than one form of assessment. This is good, because if one assessment cannot determine what area(s) a student needs to improve in than the other ones might be able to. The Response to Intervention/Instruction tool requires active collaboration and teamwork from the principals, school psychologist, classroom teachers, and reading or math specialist. Without everyone being involved and onboard with RTI standards and requirements, RTI will not be as effective as it could

“A Critical Practice Analysis of Response to intervention Appropriation in an Urban School” written by Kathleen A. King Thorius, Brendan D. Maxcy, Erin Macey, and Adrienne Cox, highlights some key difficulties urban schools face through the enactment of Response to Intervention. Response to Intervention emerged in the early 2000’s when the field of special education was critiqued on the way they diagnosed and identified students with learning disabilities. RTI is done through interviews, mentoring and monitoring. The intensity of the intervention undergoes three or four tiers in particular; Tier 1 is when all students are provided with general education and are supervised based on the improvement and expectancy for the age and grade and Tier 2 occurs when the teachers are not noticing improvements. Tier 2 is simply when the specified students receive more skill-oriented testing and monitoring. If there is no improvement seen, they are moved to Tier 3, which is when the students receive the most intensive instruction. If there is no improvement in this tier, they are then receiving Tier 4 instruction, which is otherwise known as special education. RTI provides a structure of how to supply intervention for those children struggling academically in fields that they previously lacked. However, as displayed in this article, the context of what occurs during this meeting still requires a bit more structure.

Since its development in 1994 the standards of Educational Leadership have pursued promoting an understanding on what is expected from the educational administration field.1 The goal of this paper is to present a personal appraisal of a connection between the ELCC standards and my own experiences in district leadership and a reflection on my professional practice of the standards. It is implicit that an educational leader should promote the success of every student by advocating and effectively implementing the 6 standards of Educational Leadership. 2

Educational leadership has changed and evolved through the years as a result of dramatic changes in the school culture, student demographics, environment, science, technology, and economy. Given the complexity and unpredictability of the demanding challenges to educate all children, prospective school leaders may find it desirable to define their own beliefs about instructional supervision and evaluation as they prepare for the rigor of school leadership practice. While enacting supervision, a supervisor is guided by certain values, assumptions, beliefs, and opinions that support the purpose and process of supervision (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2006). This can be described as the supervisor’s

Throughout this book, Sergiovanni is attempting to reframe the role of leadership in a school from an old paradigm focused on management and control and the view that a school is a formal organization, to a new paradigm of empowerment through caring, acknowledging the expertise of teachers and students, and facilitating their active participation in the school.

Marzano, McNulty and Waters propose five steps for a plan of effective school leadership. The first step is developing a leadership team with purpose. The definition used for a purposeful community is one with the collective efficacy and capability to develop and use assets to accomplish goals that mater to all community members through agreed-upon process (Marzano, et. al, 2005). The second step is distributing some responsibilities throughout the leadership team. The third step is to select the right work. The fourth step is to identify the order of magnitude implied by the selected work. The last step is to match the management style to the order of magnitude of the change initiative. The last step incorporates whether this is first or second order change.

Over the years, I have worn many educator hats such as a Director of Resource, classroom teacher, Head Start teacher, special’s teacher, and as a teacher’s aide. My leadership experiences have not been ones in an administrative role, but I have had leadership experiences both informal and formal in nature. My years as a professional educator with a Virginia Collegiate Professional license has allowed me to teach in public settings as well as Catholic schools, at many different grade levels and for me, all of those experiences have influenced my leadership skills.

As the leader of a 21st century school one must embody the qualities that best reflect the ever-changing face of education. Traditionally, the leader of a school focused a large portion of time and energy on typical managerial functions within the school. These tasks, although important, will not propel a school to achieve excellence. Today’s school leaders must be visionaries who create a sense of purpose driven unity. As a transformational leader, one must also be the beacon of learning in establishing and effectively cultivating professional learning communities. One must recognize and further develop the leadership skills of those within the school in order to ensure the vision and mission of the school is achieved. Keeping in

Effective school leadership today must combine the traditional school leadership duties such as teacher evaluation, budgeting, scheduling, and facilities maintenance with a deep involvement with specific aspects of teaching and learning. Effective instructional leaders are intensely involved in curricular and instructional issues that directly affect student achievement (Cotton, 2003). The writer of this paper acknowledges that school principals should play the role of instructional leaders, not just a school manager. The reality is that are many demands on a principals time and management skills making it difficult for most of them to spend time in classrooms, when performing teacher evaluation. Principals often make sure that teachers