REFERENCES

The ACT (2010). ACT Corporate Home. Retrieved from http://www.actstudent.org/index.html

Adams, J. B. (2002). Faculty and student perceptions of effort and performance’s relative contribution to grades. Paper presented at the 16th annual Conference on Undergraduate Teaching of Psychology, Ellenville, NY.

Alig-Meilcarek, J. M. (2003). A model of school success: Instructional leadership, academic press, and student achievement. Ohio State University: Columbus, OH.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berry, J. & Beach, R. (2006). K-12 leadership and the educational administration curriculum: A theory of preparation. Education Leadership: National Council of Professionals of Education Administration. Retrieved from http://cnx.org/content/m13772/latest

Black, S. (2007). Making the rounds. American School Board Journal, 194 (12), 40-45.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2008). Toward a theory of teacher education for social justice. The International Handbook of Educational Change (2nd ed.). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Connors, N. (2000). If you don’t feed the teachers they eat the students. Nashville, TN: Incentive Publications.

Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Rundell, B. & Evans, D. (2003) The impact of collaborative CPD on classroom teaching and learning. Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPICentre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of

142

Education. Retrieved from http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWeb/home.aspx?&page=/reel/reviews.htm

Cotton, K. (1996). School size, school climate and student performance, Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Cubberley, E. P. (1923). The principal and the principalship. The Elementary School Journal, 23(5), 342-352.

Cushman, K, & Delpit, L. (2003). 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.

Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Danielson, C. & McGreal T. L., (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development

Darling-Hammond, L. & McCloskey, L. (2008). Assessment for learning around the world: What would it mean to be internationally competitive? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(4), 263-271.

Downey, C. J., & Frase, L. E. (2001). Participant’s manual for conducting walk-through with reflective feedback to maximize student achievement. Huxley, IA: Curriculum Management Services.

Downey, C. J., 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.

Doyle, D. P. (2003). Data-driven decision-making: Is it the mantra of the month or does it have staying power? Technological Horizons In Education, 30, 2-48.

Duke, D.L. (1988). Why principals consider quitting, Phi Delta Kappan, 70(4), 308-13.

DuFour, R., DuFour R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

DuFour, R. & Marzano, R. (2009). High leverage strategies for principal leadership. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 62-68.

143

Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological, 12, 83–86.

Epstein, J. L. (1985). A qu estion of merit: Principal’s and parents’ evaluations of teachers. Educational Researcher, 14, 3-10.

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., 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., 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.

Frase, L., & Hetzel, R. (1990). School management by wondering around. Lancaster, PA; Technomic.

Fullan, M. (2005a). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Fullan, M. (2005b). Turnaround leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 174-181.

Gathercoal, F. (2004). Judicious discipline. (6th ed.). San Francisco: Caddo Gap Press.

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.

Glass, G., Willson, V., & Gottman, L. (1975). Design and analysis of time-series experiments. Boulder, CO: Colorado Associated University Press.

Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). Theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools, Teachers College Record,109(4), 877-896.

144

Goddard, Y. L., & Heron, T. E. (2001). The educational consultant: Helping professionals, parents, and mainstreamed students (4th ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Goldsmith, M & Reiter, M. (2007).What got you here won't get you there: How successful people become even more successful. New York: Hyperion

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2003). The new leaders: Transforming the art

of leadership. London: Little Brown.

Gurian, M. (2001). Boys and girls learn differently. San Fransico, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gurr, D., Drysdale, L. & Mulford, B. (2006). Models of successful principal leadership, School Leadership and Management, 26(4), pp. 371-395.

Guskey, T. R. (2006). Making High School Grades Meaningful, Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9), 670-675.

Halawah, I. (2005). The relationship between effective communication of high school principal and school climate. Education, 126(2), 334-345.

Hall, G. & Hord, S. (2000). Implementing change: Patterns, principals, and potholes. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247.

Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. (1996). The principal's role in school effectiveness: An assessment of methodological progress, International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

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, 153-188, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.

Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close the gap. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 1-17.

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.

145

B001ILIAKC

Hord, S.M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

International Center for School Leadership (2007). We learn, we teach we lead. Retrieved from http://www.leadered.com/wesurveys.html

Jacob, B & Lefgren, L. (2006). When principals rate teachers. Education Next, 12(6), 29-188.

Jimerson, S. R. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 30, 420– 437.

Jordan, H., Mendro, R., & Weerasinghe, D. (1997). Teacher effects on longitudinal student achievement. Dallas, TX: Dallas Independent School District.

The Kenton County School District. (2001). Administrative resources and forms. Retrieved from http://www.kenton.k12.ky.us

The Kenton County School District. (2007). Creating smaller learning communities:  Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.kenton.k12.ky.us/sos/default.html

Kentucky Department of Education. (2009a). Advanced placement questions and answers. Retrieved from http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/

Kentucky Department of Education. (2009b). Testing and reporting. Retrieved from http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/

Kentucky Department of Education. (2009c). School Based Decision Making. Retrieved from http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/160-00/345.PDF

Kruger J. & Dunning D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134.

Leithwood, K. (1987). Using the principal profile to assess performance. Educational Leadership, 45(1), 63-66.

Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principal and teacher leadership effects: A replication. School Leadership & Management, 20(4), 415-434.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Stephen, A., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Executive summary: How leadership influences student learning. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.learningfromleadership.umn.edu

146

Leithwood, K. & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 44(4), 529-561.

Leithwood, K., Seashore, L., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York: Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.leadershiplinc.ilstu.edu/downloads/howleadershipinfluencesstudentlearning.pdf

Levin, I. P. (1999). Relating statistics and experimental design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lezotte, L. (2001). Revolutionary and evolutionary: The effective schools movement. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products, LTD.

Lount, R. B., Park, E. S., Kerr, N. L., Messe, L. A. & Dong-Heon, S. (2008). Evaluation concerns and the kohler effect. Small Group Research, 39(6), 795-812.

Martinez, M. C., Firestone, W., Mangin, M., & Polovsky, T. (2005). Leadership alignment: The challenge of distributed leadership. Camden, New Jersey: Rutgers University. Retrieved from http://www.cepa.gse.rutgers.edu

Marshall, K. (2008). Is supervising the heck out of teachers the answer? Education Week, 27(36), 23-25.

Marshall, K. (2006a). Teacher evaluation rubrics: The why and the how, The Marshall Memo. 1-18. Retrieved from http://www.marshallmemo.com/

Marshall, K. (2006b). 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.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, Viginia: ASCD.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, Viginia: ASCD.

Mathers, C., Oliva, M., & Laine, W. M. (2008). Improving instruction through effective teacher evaluation: Options for states and districts, National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2, 1-18.

McIntosh, K., Flannery, K., Sugai, G., Braun, D., & Cochrane, K. (2008). Relationships between academics and problem behavior in the

147

transition from middle school to high School. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10(4), 243-255.

McMillan, J. H. (2001). Secondary teachers classroom assessment and grading practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 20(1), 20–32.

Minium, E. W, King, B. M., & Bear, G. (1993). Statistical reasoning in psychology and education. New York; John Wiley and Sons.

Mujis, D. (2006). Measuring teacher effectiveness: Some methodological reflections. Education Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 53-74.

Montgomery, D. (2002). Helping teachers develop through classroom observation. London, United Kingdom: David Fultan Publishing.

Morgan, K. & Morgan, S. (2007). Education state rankings 2007-2008: Pre K-12 education in the 50 united states. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Myers, D., Milne, A., Baker, K., and Gingsberg, M. B. (1987). Student discipline and high school performance. Sociology of Education, 60, 18-33.

O’Connor, K. (2009). Reforming grading practices in secondary schools. Principal’s Research Review, 4(1), 1-7.

O'Hanlon, J. & Mortensen, L. (1980). Making teacher evaluation work. The Journal of Higher Education, 51, 664-672.

Pearson Education Inc. (2006). My voice survey. Retrieved from http://www.myvoicesurvey.com

Peters, K. H. & March, J. K. (1999). Collaborative observation: Putting classroom instruction at the center of school reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Peters, C. B. T. J. & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row.

Pratt, D. (1977). Predicting teacher survival. Journal of Educational Research, 71, 12-18.

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.

Prusak, K. A., Vincent, S. D., & Pangrazi, R. P. (2005). Teacher talk: Whether giving instructions, offering compliments, or delivering discipline, how teachers talk can make the difference between success and failure. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 76(4), 21-26.

148

Raudenbush, S., Rowan, V. & Cheong., Y (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150-167.

Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can take charge. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.

Ritchie, R. & Woods, P. A. (2007). Degrees of distribution: Towards an understanding of variations in the nature of distributed leadership in schools. School Leadership Management, 27(4), 363-381.

Rivkin, E. A., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2001). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Ross, J. A. (1995). Strategies for enhancing teachers’ beliefs in their effectiveness: Research on a school improvement hypothesis. Teachers College Record, 97, 227–251.

Routman, R. (2002). Teacher talk. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 32-35.

Rowan, B., Chiang, F. S. & Miller, R. J. (1997). Using research on employees' performance to study the effects of teachers on students' achievement. Sociology of Education, 70, 256-284.

STI Education Data Management Solutions. (2008). STI office discipline reports. Mobile, AL: Software Technology Inc. Retrieved from http://www.sti-k12.com

Sarason, S. B. (1990). School context: Bridge or barrier to change? Southwest Educational Developmental Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/change/school/intro.html

Schacter, J., & Thum, Y. M. (2004). Paying for high- and low-quality teaching. Economics of Educational Review, 23, 411-430.

School Matters. (2010). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.schooldatadirect.org

School Wise Press. (2008). Glossary of educational terms. San Francisco, CA: Publishing 20/20. Retrieved from http://www.schoolwisepress.com/smart/dict/dict.html

Schuck, S., Aubusson, P. & Buchanan, J. (2008). Enhancing teacher education practice through professional learning conversations. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 215-227.

Smylie, M. A., Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcomes of schoolbased participative decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 181–198.

149

Toch, T. & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: teacher evaluation in public education. Washington, DC: Education Sector.

Torff, B., & Sessions, D. N. (2005). Principals’ perceptions of the causes of teacher ineffectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 530-537.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A. &  Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248. 

U. S. Government Accountability Office (1995). Best Practices Methodology: A New Approach for Improving Government Operations. Retrieved http://www.gao.gov

University of Surrey Psychology Department (2007). How do I test the normality of a variable’s distribution? Guildford, Surrey, UK: The University of Surrey, Department of Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.psy.surrey.ac.uk/cfs/p8.htm

Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An international review of the literature. Paris: UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning.

Wagner, T. & Kegan, R., (2006). Change leadership: practical guide to transforming our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Walker, K. (2008). The principles’ partnership: Research brief-trimester schedule. Omaha, NE: Union Pacific Foundation.

Watts, A. (2007). An index of Kentucky’s educational progress. Policy Notes, 23, 1-2.

Wayman, J. C. (2005). Involving teachers in data-based decision-making: Using computer data systems to support teacher inquiry and reflection. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 295–308.

Wayman, J. C., Stringfield, S., & Yakimowski, M. (2004). Software enabling school improvement through the analysis of student data. Retrieved from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report67.pdf

Whitaker, T. (2003). What great principals do differently: Fifteen things that matter most. New York: Eye on Education.

Whitaker, T. (2002). Dealing with difficult teachers. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.

Yariv, Eliezer (2009). The appraisal of teachers’ performance and its impact on the mutuality of principal-teacher outcomes. School Leadership & Management, 29(5), 445-461.

150

Yinger, R. J. (1980). A study of teacher planning; description and a model of pre-acitve decision-making. Elementary School Journal, 80(3), 107-127.

Young, E. (2009). What makes a great teacher? Educational Digest, 75(1), 39-40.

Zepeda, S. J. (2003). The principal as instructional leader: A handbook for supervision. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.

151

Appendix A. Teacher Perceptions Survey Instructions

Answer questions as they relate to you. For most answers, check the boxes most applicable to you or fill in the blanks.

Questions

1. How many times per day do you speak to another teacher?

8 or more times

5-7

2-4

One

None

2. How often do you discuss curriculum issues with other teachers?

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Annually

Never

3. How often do you discuss discipline issues with other teachers?

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Annually

Never

4. How often do you discuss curriculum issues with a principal?

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Annually

Never

5. How often do you discuss discipline issues with a principal?

152

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Annually

Never

6. How often do you discuss teaching strategies with a principal?

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Annually

Never

7. How often did a principal visit your classroom last year?

8 or more times

5-7 times

2-4 times

Once

None

8. What was the average length of the principals’ visits to your classroom (not counting official observations)?

60 minutes or more

30-60 minutes

10-30 minutes

Less than 10 minutes

9. How many times were you officially observed last year?

8 or more times

5-7 times

2-4 times

Once

None

10. If you were officially observed, what was the length of the observation?

153

60 minutes or more

30-60 minutes

10-30 minutes

Less than 10 minutes

I was not officially observed last year

11. Other than CATS scores, have you reviewed any data related to your classroom (i.e. discipline, failures)?

Yes, continually and I often adjusted instruction as a result

Yes – two or more times

Yes – once

NO

12. Have you reviewed any data related to the community in which you teach (i.e. socioeconomic level, parental involvement, parental education level)

Yes, continually and I often adjusted instruction as a result

Somewhat – changed some instruction

No

13. Have you implemented in your classroom any of the initiatives discussed by your principal?

All

Most

Some

None

154

14.

Globalization is international integration. It can be described as a process by which the people of the world are unified into a single society. This process is a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural and political forces.[1] Have you adjusted your instruction/curriculum to meet the changing needs of globalization?

Yes, and I continue to do so on a regular basis

Yes, but I now only occasionally make slight adjustments

Somewhat

No, but I do believe I need to do so

No

15. How many times per day do you speak to another teacher?

8 or more times

5-7

2-4

One

None

Submit Your Responses

155

Appendix B. Student SurveyInstructions

Answer questions as they relate to you. For most answers, check the boxes most applicable to you or fill in the blanks.

Questions

1. How many times per day do you speak to a teacher?

8 or more times

5-7

2-4

One

None

2. How often do you discuss personal issues with teachers?

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Annually

Never

3. How often do you discuss discipline issues with your teachers?

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Annually

Never 4. How often do you speak with a principal?

156

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Annually

Never 5. How often do you discuss discipline issues with a principal?

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Annually

Never

6. How often do you discuss learning strategies with a teacher (how to study, test taking strategies, learning styles)?

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Annually

Never 7. How often does a teacher in this building motivate and inspire you.

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Yearly

Never

8. How often did a principal visit your classroom last year?

8 or more times

157

5-7 times

2-4 times

Once

None

9. When a principal visits your classroom, does teacher instruction change?

Yes, instruction improves

No Change

Yes, negatively

10. When a principal visits your classroom, does student behavior change?

Yes

Yes, but only while the principal is in the room

No

I don't know

11. Do your teachers discuss class performance with you/the class (i.e. class average, test averages, etc)?

Never

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Yearly

12. How often do your teachers relate instruction to your "School of Study"?

Never

Daily

158

Weekly

Monthly

Yearly 13. When a teacher uses technology in class, does it benefit your learning?

Always

Most of the time

Some of the time

No

My teachers never use technology

14. Do you feel that when you leave school you will be prepared for your next step in life, whether it be college, trade school, armed services, or work?

Yes, definitely

Yes

Not sure

No 15. Which of the following statements describes most of your classes?

Mostly lecture based

Mostly discussion based

Mostly group work

Mostly individual work

A combination of all the above

159

Appendix C. Quality Instruction Rubric (QIR)

160

161

162

163

Appendix D. Dixie Heights High School Instructional Practices Grading PolicySCHOOL COUNCIL POLICY FORMAT

District _Kenton County Schools__ School __Dixie Heights High School____________________

COUNCIL POLICY TYPE (Check One) POLICY NUMBER

By-Laws (Council Operational Policies)

x Function (School Operational Policies) D H . 0 8

POLICY TOPIC DESCRIPTION

INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES GRADING

POLICY STATEMENT

Teachers must update grades in Infinite Campus every two weeks so that parents and students wishing to access grade information electronically may have an accurate report.

Teachers must have grades current at mid-term and end of term.

Date Adopted ___8/20/09____________ Signature ________________________

Council Chairperson

164

Appendix E. Enhancing Achievement Intervention Plan (Failing Students) SCHOOL COUNCIL POLICY FORMAT

District _Kenton County Schools__  School __Dixie Heights High School____________________

COUNCIL POLICY TYPE (Check One) POLICY NUMBER

By-Laws (Council Operational Policies) Function (School Operational Policies)

DH 2007-2008 -03

POLICY TOPIC DESCRIPTION

Enhancing Achievement Intervention Plan (Failing Students)

POLICY STATEMENT

First Year Freshman

Freshman Academy – Students in the freshman academy have a myriad of interventions which aid students in becoming successful high school students. These include but are not limited to:

Counseling Remediation Teamed Teachers Constant Grade Monitoring After School Credit Recovery

*All freshmen who do not earn enough credits to achieve sophomore status will be recommended for summer credit recovery in order to avoid being placed on academic probation*

Second Year Freshman

Students not on track for graduation will be placed on academic probation and be recommended for:

During School Credit Recovery After School Credit Recovery Counseling Administrative Intervention-within building

Completion of the 1 st Trimester Students not on track for graduation will continue on academic probation and be recommended for:

165

During School Credit Recovery – must complete 3 credits during 1st Trimester. After School Credit Recovery Counseling Administrative Intervention--within building Recommendation for Community Service Recommendation for home/compass learning Recommendation for a drug test at the parent’s expense Administrative Intervention through the central office

Completion of the 2 nd Trimester

Students not on track for graduation will continue on academic probation and be recommended for:

During School Credit Recovery – must complete 3 credits during the 2nd Trimester. After School Credit Recovery Counseling Administrative Intervention--within building Recommendation for Community Service Recommendation for home/compass learning Recommendation for a drug test at the parent’s expense Administrative Intervention through the central office

Completion of 3 rd Trimester—Completion of 2 nd Year of High School

*All freshmen who do not earn enough credits to achieve sophomore status will be recommended for summer credit recovery in order to reach “satisfactory progress” toward graduation.*

Any student, who does not earn enough credits to be considered a sophomore before the beginning of their third year of high school, will not be allowed to attend school during the normal school day. They may:

Attend Night School Participate in home/compass learning Participate in afterschool credit recovery Apply for available alternate placement programs

Any student who earns enough credits to be considered “on track” for graduation, will be taken off academic probation.

Date Adopted ___1-16-08_____________ Signature ____________________KB/dm

Council Chairperson

166

Appendix F. Kenton County Code of Acceptable Behavior and Discipline

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

Appendix G. Sample Snapshot Tracker

177

Appendix H. Sample Data Reviews

% o

f A

% o

f B

% o

f C

% o

f D

% o

f F

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Grade Distribution 07/08

TeacherDepartmentSchool

% of A % of B % of C % of D % of F0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Grade Distribution 07/08

178

% of A % of B % of C % of D % of F0%

10%20%30%40%50%

Grade Distribution 07/08

% of A % of B % of C % of D % of F0%

10%

20%

30%

40%Grade Distribution 07/08 3rd

% of A % of B % of C % of D % of F0%

10%

20%

30%

40%Grade Distribution 07/08

179

% of A % of B % of C % of D % of F0%

10%

20%

30%

40%Grade Distribution 07/08

% of A % of B % of C % of D % of F0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Grade Distribution 07/08

% o

f A

% o

f B

% o

f C

% o

f D

% o

f F

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

FRAC Grade Distribution 07/08

FRACSchool

180

Discipline Infractions Most to Least

A B C D F % o

f A

% o

f B

% o

f C

% o

f D

% o

f F

Dis

cipl

ine

Infr

actio

ns

Teacher

36 29 21 15 4 34% 28% 20% 14% 4% 47 Teacher 1

29 20 13 8 15 34% 24% 15% 9% 18% 31 Teacher 2

71 38 7 10 6 54% 29% 5% 8% 5% 28 Teacher 3

50 21 17 7 14 46% 19% 16% 6% 13% 28 Teacher 4

25 29 14 16 17 25% 29% 14% 16% 17% 25 Teacher 5

42 31 15 2 13 41% 30% 15% 2% 13% 24 Teacher 6

45 28 15 17 6 41% 25% 14% 15% 5% 24 Teacher 7

32 34 24 16 14 27% 28% 20% 13% 12% 24 Teacher 8

64 24 16 11 8 52% 20% 13% 9% 7% 22 Teacher 9

36 37 21 10 5 33% 34% 19% 9% 5% 22 Teacher 10

37 33 17 17 11 32% 29% 15% 15% 10% 20 Teacher 11

37 38 29 10 11 30% 30% 23% 8% 9% 19 Teacher 12

38 35 10 11 10 37% 34% 10% 11% 10% 17 Teacher 13

39 29 26 6 6 37% 27% 25% 6% 6% 16 Teacher 14

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

15 24 21 35 9 14% 23% 20% 34% 9% 15 Teacher 16

35 23 21 10 6 37% 24% 22% 11% 6% 14 Teacher 17

40 40 11 3 4 41% 41% 11% 3% 4% 12 Teacher 18

59 38 17 1 1 51% 33% 15% 1% 1% 12 Teacher 19

67 21 7 1 2 68% 21% 7% 1% 2% 12 Teacher 20

20 20 25 12 9 23% 23% 29% 14% 10% 12 Teacher 21

22 30 22 20 9 21% 29% 21% 19% 9% 11 Teacher 22

181

21 17 18 16 3 28% 23% 24% 21% 4% 10 Teacher 23

56 15 16 9 6 55% 15% 16% 9% 6% 10 Teacher 24

38 24 20 14 5 38% 24% 20% 14% 5% 10 Teacher 25

76 17 8 1 5 71% 16% 7% 1% 5% 10 Teacher 26

14 20 22 10 6 19% 28% 31% 14% 8% 9 Teacher 27

15 54 23 12 8 13% 48% 21% 11% 7% 8 Teacher 28

38 16 4 2 0 63% 27% 7% 3% 0% 8 Teacher 29

27 34 38 13 5 23% 29% 32% 11% 4% 8 Teacher 30

43 31 19 4 9 41% 29% 18% 4% 8% 8 Teacher 31

27 30 28 18 12 23% 26% 24% 16% 10% 7 Teacher 32

30 36 38 10 7 25% 30% 31% 8% 6% 7 Teacher 33

43 37 14 6 4 41% 36% 13% 6% 4% 7 Teacher 34

18 32 23 7 13 19% 34% 25% 8% 14% 6 Teacher 35

35 37 19 11 8 32% 34% 17% 10% 7% 6 Teacher 36

55 28 21 3 2 50% 26% 19% 3% 2% 5 Teacher 37

14 10 8 2 2 39% 28% 22% 6% 6% 5 Teacher 38

22 26 30 22 2 22% 25% 29% 22% 2% 4 Teacher 39

58 38 15 1 4 50% 33% 13% 1% 3% 4 Teacher 40

19 25 35 7 1 22% 29% 40% 8% 1% 4 Teacher 41

75 20 10 5 6 65% 17% 9% 4% 5% 4 Teacher 42

27 22 25 14 20 25% 20% 23% 13% 19% 3 Teacher 43

83 17 11 2 2 72% 15% 10% 2% 2% 3 Teacher 44

31 27 17 8 2 36% 32% 20% 9% 2% 3 Teacher 45

45 18 6 7 3 57% 23% 8% 9% 4% 2 Teacher 46

13 23 12 4 4 23% 41% 21% 7% 7% 2 Teacher 47

182

28 30 32 16 4 25% 27% 29% 15% 4% 1 Teacher 48

23 46 18 16 2 22% 44% 17% 15% 2% 1 Teacher 49

53 15 17 8 7 53% 15% 17% 8% 7% 0 Teacher 50

51 22 8 2 4 59% 25% 9% 2% 5% 0 Teacher 51

32 20 19 5 0 42% 26% 25% 7% 0% 0 Teacher 52

122 9 5 2 1 88% 6% 4% 1% 1% 0 Teacher 53

22 29 24 6 5 26% 34% 28% 7% 6% 0 Teacher 54

50 20 9 3 16 51% 20% 9% 3% 16% 0 Teacher 55

      % A from the Highest percentage to the Least     

A B C D F % o

f A

% o

f B

% o

f C

% o

f D

% o

f F

Dis

cipl

ine

Infr

actio

ns

 122 9 5 2 1 88% 6% 4% 1% 1% 0 Teacher 5383 17 11 2 2 72% 15% 10% 2% 2% 3 Teacher 4476 17 8 1 5 71% 16% 7% 1% 5% 10 Teacher 2667 21 7 1 2 68% 21% 7% 1% 2% 12 Teacher 2075 20 10 5 6 65% 17% 9% 4% 5% 4 Teacher 4238 16 4 2 0 63% 27% 7% 3% 0% 8 Teacher 2951 22 8 2 4 59% 25% 9% 2% 5% 0 Teacher 5145 18 6 7 3 57% 23% 8% 9% 4% 2 Teacher 4656 15 16 9 6 55% 15% 16% 9% 6% 10 Teacher 2471 38 7 10 6 54% 29% 5% 8% 5% 28 Teacher 353 15 17 8 7 53% 15% 17% 8% 7% 0 Teacher 5064 24 16 11 8 52% 20% 13% 9% 7% 22 Teacher 950 20 9 3 16 51% 20% 9% 3% 16% 0 Teacher 5559 38 17 1 1 51% 33% 15% 1% 1% 12 Teacher 1955 28 21 3 2 50% 26% 19% 3% 2% 5 Teacher 3758 38 15 1 4 50% 33% 13% 1% 3% 4 Teacher 4050 21 17 7 14 46% 19% 16% 6% 13% 28 Teacher 432 20 19 5 0 42% 26% 25% 7% 0% 0 Teacher 5243 37 14 6 4 41% 36% 13% 6% 4% 7 Teacher 3440 40 11 3 4 41% 41% 11% 3% 4% 12 Teacher 1842 31 15 2 13 41% 30% 15% 2% 13% 24 Teacher 643 31 19 4 9 41% 29% 18% 4% 8% 8 Teacher 3145 28 15 17 6 41% 25% 14% 15% 5% 24 Teacher 714 10 8 2 2 39% 28% 22% 6% 6% 5 Teacher 3838 24 20 14 5 38% 24% 20% 14% 5% 10 Teacher 2535 23 21 10 6 37% 24% 22% 11% 6% 14 Teacher 17

183

39 29 26 6 6 37% 27% 25% 6% 6% 16 Teacher 1438 35 10 11 10 37% 34% 10% 11% 10% 17 Teacher 1331 27 17 8 2 36% 32% 20% 9% 2% 3 Teacher 4536 29 21 15 4 34% 28% 20% 14% 4% 47 Teacher 129 20 13 8 15 34% 24% 15% 9% 18% 31 Teacher 236 37 21 10 5 33% 34% 19% 9% 5% 22 Teacher 1037 33 17 17 11 32% 29% 15% 15% 10% 20 Teacher 1135 37 19 11 8 32% 34% 17% 10% 7% 6 Teacher 3637 38 29 10 11 30% 30% 23% 8% 9% 19 Teacher 1221 17 18 16 3 28% 23% 24% 21% 4% 10 Teacher 2332 34 24 16 14 27% 28% 20% 13% 12% 24 Teacher 822 29 24 6 5 26% 34% 28% 7% 6% 0 Teacher 5428 30 32 16 4 25% 27% 29% 15% 4% 1 Teacher 4827 22 25 14 20 25% 20% 23% 13% 19% 3 Teacher 4330 36 38 10 7 25% 30% 31% 8% 6% 7 Teacher 3325 29 14 16 17 25% 29% 14% 16% 17% 25 Teacher 527 30 28 18 12 23% 26% 24% 16% 10% 7 Teacher 3220 20 25 12 9 23% 23% 29% 14% 10% 12 Teacher 2113 23 12 4 4 23% 41% 21% 7% 7% 2 Teacher 4727 34 38 13 5 23% 29% 32% 11% 4% 8 Teacher 3023 40 17 12 9 23% 40% 17% 12% 9% 16 Teacher 1523 46 18 16 2 22% 44% 17% 15% 2% 1 Teacher 4919 25 35 7 1 22% 29% 40% 8% 1% 4 Teacher 4122 26 30 22 2 22% 25% 29% 22% 2% 4 Teacher 3922 30 22 20 9 21% 29% 21% 19% 9% 11 Teacher 2214 20 22 10 6 19% 28% 31% 14% 8% 9 Teacher 2718 32 23 7 13 19% 34% 25% 8% 14% 6 Teacher 3515 24 21 35 9 14% 23% 20% 34% 9% 15 Teacher 1615 54 23 12 8 13% 48% 21% 11% 7% 8 Teacher 28

% F from the Highest percentage to the Least

A B C D F % o

f A

% o

f B

% o

f C

% o

f D

% o

f F

Dis

cipl

ine

Infr

actio

ns

Teacher27 22 25 14 20 25% 20% 23% 13% 19% 3 Teacher 4329 20 13 8 15 34% 24% 15% 9% 18% 31 Teacher 225 29 14 16 17 25% 29% 14% 16% 17% 25 Teacher 550 20 9 3 16 51% 20% 9% 3% 16% 0 Teacher 5518 32 23 7 13 19% 34% 25% 8% 14% 6 Teacher 3550 21 17 7 14 46% 19% 16% 6% 13% 28 Teacher 442 31 15 2 13 41% 30% 15% 2% 13% 24 Teacher 632 34 24 16 14 27% 28% 20% 13% 12% 24 Teacher 820 20 25 12 9 23% 23% 29% 14% 10% 12 Teacher 2127 30 28 18 12 23% 26% 24% 16% 10% 7 Teacher 3238 35 10 11 10 37% 34% 10% 11% 10% 17 Teacher 1337 33 17 17 11 32% 29% 15% 15% 10% 20 Teacher 1123 40 17 12 9 23% 40% 17% 12% 9% 16 Teacher 15

184

37 38 29 10 11 30% 30% 23% 8% 9% 19 Teacher 1222 30 22 20 9 21% 29% 21% 19% 9% 11 Teacher 2215 24 21 35 9 14% 23% 20% 34% 9% 15 Teacher 1643 31 19 4 9 41% 29% 18% 4% 8% 8 Teacher 3114 20 22 10 6 19% 28% 31% 14% 8% 9 Teacher 2735 37 19 11 8 32% 34% 17% 10% 7% 6 Teacher 3613 23 12 4 4 23% 41% 21% 7% 7% 2 Teacher 4715 54 23 12 8 13% 48% 21% 11% 7% 8 Teacher 2853 15 17 8 7 53% 15% 17% 8% 7% 0 Teacher 5064 24 16 11 8 52% 20% 13% 9% 7% 22 Teacher 935 23 21 10 6 37% 24% 22% 11% 6% 14 Teacher 1756 15 16 9 6 55% 15% 16% 9% 6% 10 Teacher 2422 29 24 6 5 26% 34% 28% 7% 6% 0 Teacher 5430 36 38 10 7 25% 30% 31% 8% 6% 7 Teacher 3339 29 26 6 6 37% 27% 25% 6% 6% 16 Teacher 1414 10 8 2 2 39% 28% 22% 6% 6% 5 Teacher 3845 28 15 17 6 41% 25% 14% 15% 5% 24 Teacher 775 20 10 5 6 65% 17% 9% 4% 5% 4 Teacher 4238 24 20 14 5 38% 24% 20% 14% 5% 10 Teacher 2576 17 8 1 5 71% 16% 7% 1% 5% 10 Teacher 2651 22 8 2 4 59% 25% 9% 2% 5% 0 Teacher 5136 37 21 10 5 33% 34% 19% 9% 5% 22 Teacher 1071 38 7 10 6 54% 29% 5% 8% 5% 28 Teacher 327 34 38 13 5 23% 29% 32% 11% 4% 8 Teacher 3040 40 11 3 4 41% 41% 11% 3% 4% 12 Teacher 1821 17 18 16 3 28% 23% 24% 21% 4% 10 Teacher 2343 37 14 6 4 41% 36% 13% 6% 4% 7 Teacher 3436 29 21 15 4 34% 28% 20% 14% 4% 47 Teacher 145 18 6 7 3 57% 23% 8% 9% 4% 2 Teacher 4628 30 32 16 4 25% 27% 29% 15% 4% 1 Teacher 4858 38 15 1 4 50% 33% 13% 1% 3% 4 Teacher 4031 27 17 8 2 36% 32% 20% 9% 2% 3 Teacher 4567 21 7 1 2 68% 21% 7% 1% 2% 12 Teacher 2022 26 30 22 2 22% 25% 29% 22% 2% 4 Teacher 3923 46 18 16 2 22% 44% 17% 15% 2% 1 Teacher 4955 28 21 3 2 50% 26% 19% 3% 2% 5 Teacher 3783 17 11 2 2 72% 15% 10% 2% 2% 3 Teacher 4419 25 35 7 1 22% 29% 40% 8% 1% 4 Teacher 4159 38 17 1 1 51% 33% 15% 1% 1% 12 Teacher 19122 9 5 2 1 88% 6% 4% 1% 1% 0 Teacher 5338 16 4 2 0 63% 27% 7% 3% 0% 8 Teacher 2932 20 19 5 0 42% 26% 25% 7% 0% 0 Teacher 52

185

Appendix I. Definitions of Terms

ACT- “The ACT® test assesses high school students' general educational development

and their ability to complete college-level work.

The multiple-choice tests cover four skill areas: English, mathematics, reading,

and science.

The Writing Test, which is optional, measures skill in planning and writing a

short essay.”

(The ACT, 2010)

Advanced Placement (AP)—“The Advanced Placement program for high school

students includes information regarding College Board Advanced Placement courses and

credit; the Commonwealth Diploma, the International Baccalaureate Diploma; Senate

Bill 74 "An act relating to college preparatory programs"; dual credit and dual-enrollment

courses; Kentucky Virtual High School AP courses, online course scholarships and AP

exam fee waivers; and professional development opportunities and scholarship

information for AP teachers.” (Kentucky Department of Education, 2009a)

Best Practice—“the processes, practices, and systems identified in public and private

organizations that performed exceptionally well and are widely recognized as improving

an organization's performance and efficiency in specific areas. Successfully identifying

and applying best practices can reduce business expenses and improve organizational

efficiency.” (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 1995)

Block Schedule—“Instead of traditional 40- to 50-minute periods, block scheduling

allows for periods of an hour or more so that teachers can accomplish more during a class

session. It also allows for teamwork across subject areas in some schools. For example, a

186

math and science teacher may teach a physics lesson that includes both math and physics

concepts.” (School Wise Press, 2008)

Classroom Grade Distribution—As a measure of student performance, student grade

distributions were collected once every twelve weeks and monitored for trends. Student

grade distributions for each teacher was provided by number and percentage of students

earning As, Bs, Cs, Ds, and Fs.

Commonwealth Accountability Testing System (CATS)—“Kentucky's accountability

system is a high-stakes system with rewards and sanctions attached to results. The over-

riding goal of the Commonwealth Accountability Testing System (CATS) is for all

schools in Kentucky to reach Proficiency as defined by the Kentucky Board of Education

(KBE). The accountability system provides the mechanism for measuring this goal and

thus provides feedback to schools on how they are progressing toward the long-term goal

set by KBE. By regulation (703 KAR 5:020), Kentucky's accountability system focuses

primarily on schools. While the system does provide for school district accountability

(703 KAR 5:130), reward money is not attached to district results.” (Kentucky

Department of Education, 2009b)

Data Review—Each teacher received several sets of data throughout the year related to

their students’ performance. These data included details of how many students were

assigned an A, B, C, D or F for a final grade in all the classes which were taught by that

teacher. The data also includes the faculty data for the teachers’ review.

Discipline Referral—Classroom discipline referrals are categorized by the school

district as: aggressive to school employee, defiance, failure to comply with discipline,

fights, harassment, profanity, tardies and skipping, tobacco, disorderly conduct, or

187

repeated violations. The discipline monitored in this study is discipline referred to the

principals by the classroom teacher.

Discipline Reports—Summaries of rule infractions committed by students and reported

to the administrative team by teachers. These reports includes such details as which

student and teacher was involved, the details of the infraction, the date of the infraction,

and the punishment as decided by the administrative team member. (STI Education Data

Management Solutions, 2008)

Distributed Leadership—Distributed leadership is a leadership style that has emerged in

recent years to include all stakeholders in the leadership process. All the leaders and their

behaviors become interrelated. The sharing of power and decision making creates an

environment that improves the quality of decisions and conditions that will not disappear

with changes in leadership.

Kentucky Core Content Test (KCCT)—“a criterion-referenced test based on

Kentucky’s content standards. The test items measure Kentucky Core Content for

Assessment (v4.1), a subset of the Program of Studies. Both of these documents define

student expectations by content area and grade level.” (Kentucky Department of

Education, 2009b)

Kentucky Performance Report (KPR)—“gives detailed information on the results

provided by the Kentucky Core Content Test (KCCT), Writing Portfolio, Norm-

Referenced Test and other components of the Commonwealth Accountability Testing

System (CATS). As required in statute, these reports are received by school districts on

or before September 15th each year. The datum in these reports are constructed from

information provided by many sources: students, schools, district offices, the Kentucky

188

Department of Education and testing contractors.” (Kentucky Department of Education,

2009b)

Official Observation –“the process of assessing or determining the effectiveness of the

performance of the certified employee in a given (teaching and learning or leadership and

management) situation, based on the standards and demonstrators on the evaluation form

developed by the Evaluation Committee, through observation, discussions, and other

means of gathering information. The evaluation process shall also include the

establishment and monitoring of a growth plan mutually agreed upon by the evaluator

and the evaluated certified employee.” (The Kenton County School District, 2001)

One-on-One Summer Meetings—Individual summer meetings were one hour long

conferences between a teacher and one principal, each meeting addressed: past

performance and goals the teacher has for the future; a review/discussion of the teacher’s

instructional practices as related to grade distributions/failure rate, discipline records,

state tests scores, previous formal evaluations, the teacher’s former and future individual

professional growth plan, their use of technology; and the future focus of the principals

over the next year.

Principal-Teacher Interactions—Any interaction (verbal, written, electronic, etc...)

between the principal and the teacher. The specific principal-teacher interactions

implemented in this study are one-on-one summer meetings, snapshots, data reviews, and

teacher self assessment.

Professional Development (PD)—“Programs that allow teachers or administrators to

acquire the knowledge and skills they need to perform their jobs successfully.” (School

Wise Press, 2008)

189

Professional Growth Plan (PGP)—“a plan jointly developed by evaluator and evaluatee

for assistance or enrichment in order to become more proficient as a teacher or

administrator. The plan includes an objective, a plan of achieving the objective and a

method for evaluating progress.” (The Kenton County School District, 2001)

Professional Learning Community (PLC)—“a collegial group of administrators and

school staff who are united in their commitment to student learning. They share a vision,

work and learn collaboratively, visit and review other classrooms, and participate in

decision making.” (Hord, 1997)

QIR (Quality Instruction Rubric)—“A rubric based document, based on the research of

Charlotte Danielson, researched and organized by the Kenton County School District, it’s

employees, and Teacher Union. The ultimate purpose of this document will be to use as

an official evaluation instrument for instruction within the Kenton county school district.”

(The Kenton County School District, 2007b)

School of Study (SOS)—“Kenton County Schools of Study are based on the Holland

Model of Career Interest. John Holland, Professor Emeritus at Johns Hopkins University,

devoted his professional life to researching issues related to career choice and

satisfaction. He developed a well-known theory, and designed several assessments and

supporting materials to assist people in making effective career choices.” (The Kenton

County School District, 2007)

School Based Decision Making Council (SBDM) — Each local board of education

shall adopt a policy for implementing school-based decision making in the district which

shall include, but not be limited to, a description of how the district's policies, including

those developed pursuant to KRS 160.340, have been amended to allow the professional

190

staff members of a school to be involved in the decision making process as they work to

meet educational goals established in KRS 158.645 and 158.6451. The policy may

include a requirement that each school council make an annual report at a public meeting

of the board describing the school's progress in meeting the educational goals set forth in

KRS 158.6451 and district goals established by the board. (Kentucky Department of

Education, 2009c).

Small Learning Community (SLC)—“include structures such as freshman academies,

multi-grade academies organized around career interests or other themes, “houses” in

which small groups of students remain together throughout high school, and autonomous

schools-within-a-school, as well as personalization strategies, such as student advisories,

family advocate systems, and mentoring programs.” (US Department of Education,

2008)

Snapshot—a classroom visit to last approximately four to fifteen minutes, in which a

principal is to become part of the class if possible by taking part in the educational

process in order to aid and/or model best practice strategies. (Defined specifically for this

study by researchers)

Student Performance—For the purpose of this study, student performance is defined as

student grades and student discipline.

Teacher Instructional Practices—For the purpose of this study, teacher instructional

practices are defined and quantified by the quality instruction rubric (QIR).

Trimesters—“A trimester schedule consists of three 12-week trimesters. A student

generally takes 5 classes each trimester. Such a schedule is commonly referred to as a

3X5 schedule. Most schools schedule two official grading periods each trimester, at 6 and

191

12 weeks. Teachers most often teach 4 classes each trimester and instructional periods are

often 70-75 minutes in length. Most yearlong courses in a traditional schedule meet for

two trimesters. Because each individual class period is longer, the number of instructional

minutes remains the same. Some classes might meet all three trimesters.” (Walker, 2008)

192

CURRICULUM VITAE

Kimberly BantaUpdated April 28, 2010

ADDRESS 2140 O’Brien Place email:

Fort Mitchell, KY 41017 kim.banta@kenton.kyschools.us(859) 426-5032

EDUCATION Ed.D. Student - University of Louisville - Educational Leadership Rank I – Xavier University – Educational Leadership ProgramMA – Northern Kentucky University – Master of Arts in Secondary Education/HistoryBS – Indiana University – Bachelor of Arts in Secondary Education/Sociology and Psychology

EXPERIENCE Principal - Dixie Heights High School - 2002- Present Asst. Principal - Dixie Heights High School - 1997-2002 Teacher - Simon Kenton High School - 1988-1996 AWARDS Principal of the Year 2006 - Kentucky Art Education Association Outstanding Woman of Northern Kentucky – 2006 Albright Award – Administrator - 2006

Kentucky Colonel – 2005

ORGANIZATIONS President of KASSP – 2009-2010Kentucky Leadership Academy (KLA)

Kentucky Institute for Women in School Administration (KIWSA) Kentucky Association of School Administrators (KASA) Kentucky Association of Secondary Principals (KASSP)

RECOGNITIONS

Educator Who Makes a Difference – Auburn University recognition from former student.

Outstanding performance recognition nominated by students four concurrent years.

Girls Scout Medal Award 2009

193

CV for Kimberly Banta

PRESENTER ASCD Conference 2009, Principal’s Behavior in School BuildingModel Schools Conference 2006, Small Learning Communities

COMMITTEES Kenton County Schools Strategic Planning Committee Southern Association Committee Chair for School Review K-16 Education Committee Kenton County Schools Vision Team Principal Screening Committee

ACHIEVEMENTS

Brought national attention to Dixie when interviewed on radio by Andy Furman - 2008

Brought Dixie Heights graduation requirement from 28 to 30 credits to increase the importance/rigor of elective credits to support Small Learning Communities - 2008

Removed all soft drink and snack machines from Dixie Heights that did not have the low recommended fat and sugar content. Replaced all machines with water that students may have all day as in accordance with brain research - 2007

Spearheaded the Small Learning Communities within Dixie Heights - 2006 Presented introduction speech for teachers in the county at opening day

ceremonies, introducing Small Learning Communities - 2006 Wrote proposal for starting an alternative night school for at risk students. Dixie

Heights hosts the night school for the district – 2005 Started a Principal Student Advisory Board. These students meet with principal

two times per month for lunch and to advise the principal on what is going on in the building from the students’ eyes - 2004

Began a Freshman Academy at Dixie Heights - 2003 Test scores at Dixie Heights have increased every year for the last 9 years –

2003 - Present Restructured the special education program to reflect correct legislation -2003 Moved Dixie Heights ahead in meeting the needs of special needs students - 2002 Implemented a positive culture change at Dixie Heights for the last 13 years –

2002 - Present

194

CURRICULUM VITAE

Brennon Sappupdated April 17, 2010

ADDRESS The Kenton County School District (859) 344-8888 1055 Eaton Drive brennon.sapp@kenton.kyschools.us Ft. Wright, KY 41017 brennon.sapp@gmail.com

EDUCATION 2008-2010 Ed.D. Student, Educational Leadership, University of Louisville

in Louisville, KY

2005-2006 Educational Administration Program, Indiana University Southeast in New Albany, IN

2002-2005 Continuing Education Option-Secondary Education/Multiple Intelligences, Profession Standards Board in conjunction with Frankfort and Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, KY

1997-2000 Master of Arts in Secondary Education/Mathematics, Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, KY

1992-2000 Bachelor of Arts in Secondary Education with a double major in Mathematics and Chemistry, Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, KY

LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE 2010-Current Director of Secondary Education, The Kenton County School

District in Ft. Wright, KYMy role—monitor/enhance function and performance of four high schools and for middle schools

2009-2010 Director of Instructional Technology & Innovative Programs, The Kenton County School District in Ft. Wright, KYMy role—Direct technology instruction, Oversee Perkins Grants, vocational programs, Schools of Study, and Kentucky Scholars

195

CV for Brennon Sapp

2006-2009 Assistant Principal, Dixie Heights High School in Crestview Hills, KYMy role—Freshman Academy Administrator, Administrator for Repeat Freshmen, Co-Athletic Director, Science Consultant, (department curriculum and structure), Building Technology Coordinator, Initiating innovative strategies within the school (Senior Projects, May Term, Schools of Study, Smartboard Instruction, Web Media)

2005-2006 Instructional Coach, Carroll County High Schoool in Carrolton, KYMy role—Monitor the gifted and talented program, Tech-Prep Coordinator, improving and monitoring instruction, initiating innovative strategies within the school, manage and monitor extended school service and intervention programs, professional development activities, collaborate with administration on activities which impact instruction

2003-2005 Science Department Head, North Oldham High Schoool in Goshen, KYMy role— Initial design/organization of all aspects of the original science department at North Oldham High School, managing the annual science budget and purchasing, scheduling departmental classes, organizing and conducting departmental professional development, supervised alignment of science curriculum with KERA standards, collaboration with North Oldham middle school science department, organization and instructional design of senior projects - organization and coordination of May Term

PUBLICATIONS, WEBSITES, AND OTHE2004 FORENSICS ILLUSTRATED: Step Under the Tape-this is a

textbook, curriculum, and companion website for teacher forensic science to high school level students, published by EOA Scientific in 2004

2000-Current Sapp’s Instructional Websites—www.bsapp.com This is a series of ten to fifteen websites which includes all of the published material from Forensics Illustrated. All of the material on this site is open and free to the public. The site is featured on many accredited national instructional websites including Idaho Digital Learning, AP (Advanced Placement) and AHS (American Home Schooling). This collection of web-sites currently receives an average of 150,000 hits each month.

196

CV for Brennon Sapp

Spring 2005 Front Page of the Courier Journal in recognition of “May Term” classes and “CSI-Goshen” (a fifteen hour crime scene simulation through collaboration with social studies, psychology, drama, and science)

Fall 2004 WHAS-11 Top Story-in recognition of a successful science classCourier- Journal: Community Feature-in recognition of a successful science class

CONFERENCE PRESENTATOINS2004-Present Presented multiple topics at conferences at the state and the

national level dating from Fall 2004 to the present. Topics of Presentations are Professional Practices Rubric (Teacher Rubric Based Evaluation), Principal Behavior, Teaching with Multiple Intelligences, Forensics for High School, A CSI Simulation, Forensics Labs, Senior Projects, and May Term.

Conference Presentation Highlights: Spring 2010—KSBA (Kentucky School Board Association Conference) Fall 2009—KPA (Kentucky Principal Academy) Spring 2009—ASCD (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development) Spring 2009—University of Louisville Doctorial Candidate Conference Fall 2005, 2006, and 2007—NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) Fall 2004 and 2005—KSTA (Kentucky Science Teachers Association) Spring 2005 and 2006—KTLC (Kentucky Teaching and Learning Conference) Fall 2005—KSS (Kentucky School Superintendents) Spring 2006—Kentucky Secondary Schools Alliance Fall 2005 and Spring 2006—Kentucky Student Summits Spring 2006—Biotechnology Conference

197