2. Arkansas Leadership Academy Offices

3. Purpose of School Support The Arkansas Leadership Academy School Support Program, in collaboration with the Arkansas Department of Education, provides support for a minimum of three consecutive school years to applicable schools or school districts in School Improvement.

4. Objectives of the Arkansas Leadership Academy School Support Program Build the leadership capacity of the school and district personnel; Train a diverse school leadership team, including, but not limited to, the superintendent/designee, school principal, and teachers; Provide a cadre of highly experienced, trained capacity building leaders to work in the school on a regular basis; Visit the school at least weekly to facilitate leadership activities and provide follow-up on professional development implementation;

5. Work with the school, school district staff, school board members, parents, community members, and other stakeholders as necessary to provide a comprehensive support network; Work with the school board for at least 9 hours annually to establish goals for the school district and engage in strategic planning to meet district goals; Engage the community to gather input concerning strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and barriers within the school/district

6. Who Works in the Schools ?  5 Full-time Capacity Builders  1 Half-time Capacity Builder  3 Partial-time Capacity Builders  Specialty Area Consultants

7. How has the Arkansas Leadership Academy School Support Program grown? 2009 7 Elementary Schools 4 Middle Schools 6 High Schools Total schools = 17 schools 2010 7 Elementary Schools 4 Middle Schools 11 High Schools Total = 22 schools 2011 5 Elementary Schools 6 Middle Schools 14 High Schools Total schools = 25 schools

8. Where are School Support Program Schools located?

9. School Support Program Outcomes What are the outcomes of our work with teachers, leaders, and students?

10. Leadership Efficacy SSP initial focus is on building leadership capacity—hypothesize that as leadership capacity increases, leadership efficacy will increase. Measuring: Management Efficacy Instructional Leadership Efficacy Moral Leadership Efficacy

11. Principals in SSP for their 3 rd year had significantly higher instructional & moral leadership efficacy than those just starting with SSP.

12. Cohort 1: 2009 to 2010 AYP Improvements in Initial Year 57% of schools moved to their first or second year of achieving standards. SSP schools doubled the number of groups meeting AYP from 2009 to 2010. Post-appeals 2011 AYP results were not available at the time this report was compiled.

13. Substantial gains in proficient/advanced students the first year of SSP coupled with reducing the percentage of student most at risk (Below Basic). Results from Year 1 of SSP

14. Results from Year 2 of SSP Gains in advanced students the second year of SSP coupled with reducing the percentage of students most at risk (Below Basic). Year 2 includes addition of 1 elementary, 2 middle and 6 high schools.

15. Results from Year 1 of SSP Substantial gains in proficient/advanced students the first year of SSP coupled with reducing the percentage of student most at risk (Below Basic).

16. Year 2 results for SSP schools for math exhibit modest increases in proficient and advanced students. Results from Year 2 of SSP

17. Progress on achievement gaps— greater gains in literacy for African American students in Year 1.

18. Progress on achievement gaps— greater gains in math for African American students in Year 1.

19. Summary of Results for SSP Years 1 and 2 Substantial improvements for schools during year 1 for literacy and math. Continued, more modest improvements in Year 2. – Added more schools including 6 high schools Narrowed achievement gaps in general Leaders in SSP have higher efficacy for instructional and moral leadership after 2 years compared to leaders just beginning SSP.