North Carolina Regional Leadership Academies

North Carolina

Regional Leadership Academies

Final 2013 Activity Report

Author:

Kathleen M. Brown

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Contributors:

Nicolle Stewart and Elizabeth D’Amico

Carolina Institute Public Policy

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

March 2014

Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina

North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2012 Report

March 2014

Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Purpose of the Regional Leadership Academies Evaluation ...................................................... 6

Purpose of this Report and Methodological Approach ............................................................... 7

North Carolina’s Regional Leadership Academies ......................................................................... 8

Northeast Leadership Academy (NELA) .................................................................................... 8

Piedmont Triad Leadership Academy (PTLA) ........................................................................... 9

Sandhills Leadership Academy (SLA) ...................................................................................... 10

Evaluation Procedures .................................................................................................................. 12

Data ........................................................................................................................................... 12

Administrative Data ............................................................................................................... 12

Survey .................................................................................................................................... 12

Observations .......................................................................................................................... 12

Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 13

Method ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Findings......................................................................................................................................... 14

Research Question 1a: Do RLAs Effectively Recruit, Relative to the Alternatives? ............... 14

Research Question 2: What Impact Does each RLA’s Selection Criteria have on Program

Effectiveness?............................................................................................................................ 16

Selectivity .............................................................................................................................. 16

RLA Selection Processes ....................................................................................................... 17

Results of the Selection Process ............................................................................................ 18

Research Question 1b: Do RLAs Effectively Train, Relative to the Alternatives? .................. 21

Research Question 3: Do RLA Graduates Find Placements in Targeted Schools/Districts? ... 24

Research Question 4: Are RLAs Cost-Effective Relative to Alternative Programs? ............... 27

Conclusions and Next Steps.......................................................................................................... 28

References ..................................................................................................................................... 31

List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 34

Appendix A. NCDPI and Z. Smith Reynolds Request for Proposals: Principal Leadership

Academies ..................................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix B. Regional Leadership Academies Biannual Participant Survey ............................... 42

Appendix C. RLA Evaluators’ Observation Log .......................................................................... 47


March 2014

Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina 2

Appendix D. Regional Leadership Academies Scope of Work and Logic Map of Initiative ....... 53

Appendix E. Cohort 1, Cohort 2, and Cohort 3 RLA Participants and Internship Placement

Schools .......................................................................................................................................... 59

Appendix F. Summary Statistics for Cohort 1’s, Cohort 2’s, and Cohort 3’s Internship Placement

Schools .......................................................................................................................................... 68

Appendix G. Raw Statistics for Cohort 1’s, Cohort 2’s, and Cohort 3’s Internship Placement

Schools .......................................................................................................................................... 77

Appendix H. Job Placements for RLA Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 ....................................................113

Appendix I. Summary Statistics for Cohort 1’s and Cohort 2’s Job Placement Schools.............119

Appendix J. Raw Statistics for Cohort 1’s and Cohort 2’s Job Placement Schools ................... 125


March 2014


NORTH CAROLINA REGIONAL LEADERSHIP ACADEMIES:

FINAL 2013 ACTIVITY REPORT

Executive Summary

Developing school leaders who are equipped with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed

to effectively lead low-performing schools has become a critical goal for local education

agencies (LEAs)1 intent on dramatically improving student outcomes. North Carolina’s Race to

the Top (RttT) plan acknowledges the pressing need for high-quality leadership in low-achieving

schools; the component of the plan that focuses on ensuring equitable distribution of high-quality

teachers and leaders identifies, among other things, a need for “increasing the number of

principals qualified to lead transformational change in low-performing schools in both rural and

urban areas” (NCDPI, 2010, p.10). To accomplish this in North Carolina, the state has

established three Regional Leadership Academies (RLAs), each of which has laid out a clear set

of principles about leadership in general, leadership development in particular, and leadership

development for high-need schools most specifically.

North Carolina’s Regional Leadership Academies

The policy objective of the RLA initiative is to increase the number of principals qualified to

lead transformational change in low-performing schools in both rural and urban areas (i.e., to

prepare approximately 185 turnaround leaders). NC RttT funds support three RLA programs that

serve collaboratives of partnering LEAs:

Northeast Leadership Academy (NELA)—Established in 2010 (one year before RttT funding

was available) and serving 14 LEAs in northeast North Carolina;

Piedmont Triad Leadership Academy (PTLA)—serving four LEAs in north-central North

Carolina; and

Sandhills Leadership Academy (SLA)—serving 13 LEAs in south-central North Carolina.

Findings

All three RLAs utilize essential features of effective leadership preparation programs as

organizing principles in designing and delivering their individual principal preparation

programs. The content, pedagogy, and experiences reflect best practices for developing

leaders who can facilitate high-quality teaching and learning for all children.

Fidelity of implementation of program designs (i.e., the degree to which the interventions

have been delivered as intended) has been strong (e.g., each RLA has recruited and prepared

over 60 “turnaround principal” candidates).

1 LEA is North Carolina’s term for traditional school districts and charter schools.


March 2014


Participants in every cohort in each RLA have found internship placements in targeted

schools and LEAs (i.e., low-performing schools, though not always schools on the list of the

5% of lowest-achieving schools in the State).

The year-long internship experience for the principal candidates has consistently provided

them with mentoring and coaching that the candidates believe will enhance their

effectiveness as principals.

Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 graduates have found employment in low-performing schools and

LEAs (19 as principals, 79 as assistant principals, 8 as central office leaders, and 9 as teacher

leaders/facilitators).2 On average (based on data from 2008-09 through 2011-12, prior to the

new 2012-13 assessment results), their employing schools host high numbers of lower-

income students (68.2% receive free or reduced-price lunch) and exhibit low achievement

rates (e.g., the Reading/English I pass rate is 62.6%; the Mathematics/Algebra I pass rate is

72.3%).

Recommendations

RLA directors should focus more time and attention on:

Working more assertively with LEAs to ensure that the leaders who matriculate from the

programs are placed in and then supported in their efforts to lead transformational change in

high-need schools; and

Critically reviewing the recruitment, training, and matching processes of mentors and

coaches for the principal candidates, as well as replacement plans for mentors and coaches

who are not effective.

Next Steps

The ongoing evaluation will probe deeper into three specific program areas:

1. Sustainability. How prepared is each RLA to sustain this project after the grant funding ends?

2. Mentor selection and training. What is each RLA doing to ensure good intern/mentor/school

site matches? What ongoing training do mentor principals receive?

3. Induction support. What is each RLA doing to provide ongoing support, mentoring, and

advice through job placement?

Targeted Findings for the Final Report

Data on the long-term and distal outcomes of the RLAs are not yet available. The Evaluation

Team will seek to assess the impact the RLAs have on principal preparation for high-need

schools over the course of the remainder of the RttT grant period (through 2014). To that end,

the final report will present some student testing results for schools with RLA-prepared

2 However, their employment often is as assistant principals or in other administrative roles that may lead to

principalships, and is not always in initially-targeted schools that participate in the state’s RttT-funded Turning

Around Lowest-Achieving Schools initiative.


March 2014


principals and assistant principals (as well as other measures of principal effectiveness) to

estimate preliminary evidence of the RLAs on student achievement (e.g., via comparisons of and

contrasts between average three-year growth trajectories in these schools prior to and after RLA

hires).


March 2014


Introduction

The importance of strong school leadership, particularly in low-achieving schools, has long been

recognized by researchers and practitioners alike. As Crawford (1998) notes, “Almost all

educational reform reports have come to the conclusion that the nation cannot attain excellence

in education without effective school leadership” (p. 8). Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003)

add, “Just as leaders can have a positive impact on achievement, they can also have a marginal,

or worse, a negative impact on achievement” (p. 5).

North Carolina’s Race to the Top (RttT) plan acknowledges the pressing need for high-quality

leadership in low-achieving schools. The component of the plan that focuses on ensuring an

equitable distribution of high-quality teachers and leaders identifies, among other things, a need

for “increasing the number of principals qualified to lead transformational change in low-

performing schools in both rural and urban areas” (NCDPI, 2010, p.10). To meet this need, the

state’s RttT proposal includes the development of Regional Leadership Academies (RLAs),

programs that are “approved for certifying principals [and] designed to . . . provide a new model

for the preparation, early career support, and continuous professional development of school

leaders” (NCDPI, 2010, p.10).

Purpose of the Regional Leadership Academies Evaluation

North Carolina’s RttT proposal also includes a commitment to an independent evaluation of each

initiative.3 The roles of the RttT Evaluation Team are to (1) document the activities of the RttT

initiatives; (2) provide timely, formative data, analyses, and recommendations to help the

initiative teams improve their ongoing work; and (3) provide summative evaluation results

toward the end of the grant period to determine whether the RttT initiatives met their goals and

to inform future policy and program decisions to sustain, modify, or discontinue initiatives after

the grant-funded period.

As part of this overall evaluation effort, the Evaluation Team is documenting RLA activities and

collecting data about participation in, satisfaction with, and the impact of RLA activities through

observations, surveys, focus groups, and interviews with RLA participants and facilitators;

additionally, the Evaluation Team is analyzing longitudinal education data on students, teachers,

leaders, and schools. The study provides detailed information about the implementation and

impact of the RLAs in order to determine if the initiative as implemented has had the intended

outcomes on school leader practice, their schools’ culture/climate of achievement, and,

potentially, teacher and student performance.

The evaluation of the NC RttT RLAs is guided by the following evaluation questions:

3 The evaluation is being conducted by the Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina

(CERE–NC), a partnership of the SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, the Carolina

Institute of Public Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the Friday Institute for Educational

Innovation at North Carolina State University.


March 2014


Research Question 1: Do RLAs effectively (a) recruit and (b) train, relative to the

alternatives?

Research Question 2: What impact does each RLA’s selection criteria have on program

effectiveness?

Research Question 3: Do RLA graduates find placements in targeted schools/districts?

North Carolina’s RLAs are supported for four years by RttT funding, but there is no guarantee of

funding beyond the grant period. Thus, in addition to these questions, the evaluation of the RLAs

includes a fourth question:

Research Question 4: Are RLAs cost-effective relative to the alternatives?

Purpose of this Report and Methodological Approach

The purpose of this second activity report is to continue to address the first three evaluation

questions by describing the program components of each RLA in detail.4 The report begins with

an overview of each of the three RLAs (including information about partners, outcomes, and

timelines), followed by a description of the methodology and procedures the Evaluation Team

used to determine each RLA’s fidelity of implementation to the aspects outlined in the original

Request for Proposals (Appendix A).5 Based on reviews of the literature on leading

transformational change and principal training programs, the Team selected a mixed-methods

approach, with qualitative methods as the primary methods of analysis.

To determine the extent to which each RLA meets or exceeds expectations based on their initial

design proposal (i.e., the extent to which the enacted program matches the espoused theory), the

report then investigates each RLA’s fidelity to implementation elements. Finally, the report

outlines a plan for the final summative evaluation, which is expected to be completed in spring

2014.

4 The fourth evaluation question regarding cost-effectiveness of the initiative will be addressed in a separate report

that will include cost-effectiveness analyses for several RttT initiatives (anticipated completion date: early spring

2014). This report was preceded by two other RttT evaluation reports: Regional Leadership Academies Cost

Effectiveness Framework, which outlined the plan for addressing the fourth evaluation question

(http://cerenc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RLA_cost_effectiveness_framework_3-1-12.pdf), and NC RLA Final

2012 Activity Report (http://cerenc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RLA_First-Year-Report-03-04-13.pdf). 5 The RFP was designed jointly by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) and the Z. Smith

Reynolds Foundation. The RLAs are supported by RttT funds. It is important to note that the development of one of

the three RLAs—the Northeast Leadership Academy (NELA)—was not actually in response to this RFP. NELA

began operations as a pilot program one year prior to North Carolina’ receipt of RttT funds. As a result, there is an

ongoing question as to whether and to what extent the RFP language pertains to NELA.

http://cerenc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RLA_cost_effectiveness_framework_3-1-12.pdf

http://cerenc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RLA_First-Year-Report-03-04-13.pdf


March 2014


North Carolina’s Regional Leadership Academies

The policy objective of the RLA initiative is to increase the number of principals qualified to

lead transformational change in low-performing schools in both rural and urban areas. NC RttT

funds support three RLA programs serving three regions of North Carolina. One RLA (Northeast

Leadership Academy, or NELA) was established one year before RttT funding was available,

and two others (Piedmont Triad Leadership Academy [PTLA] and Sandhills Leadership

Academy [SLA]) were created following a selection process that included proposal submission

to a selection committee composed of North Carolina educational leaders.

The NC RttT RLAs serve collaboratives of partnering local education agencies (LEAs)6 and

directly address the need to recruit, prepare, and support leaders of transformational change in

challenging school contexts. The RLAs provide talented individuals with the tools they need to

lead high-need school. Following a rigorous selection process, they provide full-time internships,

contextualized leader development opportunities, intensive coaching, and ongoing support. The

RLAs are designed to be consistent with literature on executive development, adult learning

theory, and educational leadership (e.g., Brown, 2006; Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, &

Meyerson, 2005; Hale & Moorman, 2003; New Leaders for New Schools, 2009).

The program meets North Carolina regulations regarding alternative principal licensure. A brief

description of each of the RLAs follows.

Northeast Leadership Academy (NELA)

The first RLA, NELA, began serving North Carolina’s northeast region during the fall of 2010.

NELA is based at North Carolina State University’s (NCSU) College of Education and serves

the following 14 partner LEAs: Bertie, Edgecombe, Franklin, Granville, Halifax, Hertford,

Martin, Nash-Rocky Mount, Northampton, Roanoke Rapids, Vance, Warren, Washington, and

Weldon City (total of 70,348 students served). It was established to serve a cluster of low-

achieving rural schools,

NELA is a two-year program that involves part-time study during Year 1 and full-time

study—including a full-time, year-long internship—during Year 2.

Successful NELA candidates are granted NC Principal Licensure and a Master of School

Administration (MSA), conferred by NCSU.

NELA selected and inducted 24 members into Cohort 1 in the summer of 2010; 21 members

of this group (87.5%) completed the program in May 2012 and are receiving continuing early

career support through 2014. Cohort 1 internships were supported by NC RttT funds.

o Most (81%) Cohort 1 members are now employed as educational leaders in the

surrounding LEAs (six of the 21 as principals, eight as assistant principals, three in

Central Office positions, two as teachers/facilitators, and two have left the NELA

Region).

6 LEA is North Carolina’s term for traditional school districts and charter schools.


March 2014


Cohort 2 members were selected and inducted in the fall of 2011. These 21 participants

completed their internships and the program in May 2013 and have career support through

2014.


surrounding LEAs (18 of the 21 as assistant principals, one in a Central Office position,

and two as teachers/facilitators).

Cohort 3 members were selected and inducted in the fall of 2012 and these 20 participants

will complete the program in May 2014. They are completing their internships now.

NELA participants make a three-year agreement to work in northeastern NC schools.

NELA has been established by and embedded in Friday Institute for Educational Innovation,

a division of NCSU’s College of Education.

Piedmont Triad Leadership Academy (PTLA)

PTLA is based at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG) and is a partnership

between the Piedmont Triad Education Consortium (PTEC) and the following four LEAs:

Alamance-Burlington, Asheboro City, Guilford, and Winston-Salem/Forsyth (total of 150,616

students served). It is a one-year program.

Successful PTLA graduates are granted NC Principal Licensure and can earn up to 24 credits

toward a UNCG Post Masters Certificate in School Administration or an MSA degree from

the Department of Educational Leadership and Cultural Foundations.

PTLA selected and inducted 21 members into Cohort 1 in the summer of 2011; 21 members

of this group (100%) completed the program in June 2012 and are receiving continued career

support through 2014.


surrounding LEAs (three of the 21 as principals, 14 as assistant principals, one in a

Central Office position, two as teachers/facilitators, and two have left the PTLA Region).

Cohort 2 members were selected and inducted in the summer of 2012. These 20 participants

completed their internships and the program in June 2013 and are receiving continued career



surrounding LEAs (13 of the 20 as assistant principals, two in Central Office positions,

and five as teachers/facilitators).

Cohort 3 members were selected in the summer of 2013 and these 22 participants will

complete the program in June 2014. They are completing their internships now.

PTLA participants commit to three years of service in partnering LEAs upon program

completion.

PTLA has been established by UNCG faculty in partnership with LEAs and a regional

education consortium.


March 2014


Sandhills Leadership Academy (SLA)

SLA was founded by the Sandhills Regional Education Consortium (SREC) and serves the

following 13 LEAs: Anson, Bladen, Columbus, Cumberland, Harnett, Hoke, Lee, Montgomery,

Moore, Richmond, Robeson, Scotland, and Whiteville City (total of 158,979 students served). It

is a one-year program.

Fayetteville State University (FSU), the University of North Carolina at Pembroke (UNCP),

and the North Carolina Center for the Advancement of Teaching (NCCAT) are partners in

SLA.

Successful SLA graduates are granted NC Principal Licensure and can earn up to 18

graduate-level credits at UNCP or FSU.

SLA selected 21 members and inducted 20 members into Cohort 1 in the summer of 2011; 20

members of this group (95%) completed the program in June 2012 and are receiving

continued career support through 2013.


surrounding LEAs (eight of the 20 as principals, nine as assistant principals, one in a

Central Office position, and two have left the SLA Region).

Cohort 2 members were selected and inducted in the summer of 2012. These 21 participants

completed their internships and the program in June 2013 and are receiving continued career



surrounding LEAs (two of the 21 as principals, 17 as assistant principals, and two as

teachers/facilitators).

Cohort 3 members were selected in the summer of 2013 and these 20 participants will

complete the program in June 2014. They will receive continued support through 2015. They

are completing their internships now.

SLA participants commit to serving in the Sandhills region for a minimum of four years

following program completion.

SLA has been established by the SREC LEAs in partnership with two universities and

NCCAT.

The RLAs were created independently to meet the school leadership needs of three vastly

different and very distinct regions of North Carolina (including “large, urban” and “small,

rural”); thus, each RLA is a unique program with its own partnerships, program philosophy,

curriculum, coursework, and fieldwork. Figure 1 (following page) shows the LEAs that are

partnering with each RLA. Each RLA has followed its own path to implementation, and

evaluators have been engaged in collecting and analyzing data related to that process since April

2011.


March 2014


Figure 1. Regions Served by the North Carolina Regional Leadership Academies


March 2014


Evaluation Procedures

Data

The evaluation is informed by a variety of data sources, including document reviews,

observations, interviews, focus groups, surveys, accounting data, and administrative data. Data

sources used for this report are detailed here.

Administrative Data

In an effort to describe the characteristics of RLA internships and job placements, the Evaluation

Team obtained school-level administrative data from a longitudinal database maintained by the

Carolina Institute for Public Policy (CIPP) and assembled from NCDPI administrative records.

These data include school characteristics—school level (elementary, middle, or high), type

(traditional or charter), region, and locale classification (i.e., urbanicity)—as well as

demographic characteristics of the student population (free or reduced-price lunch,

race/ethnicity, students with disabilities, and English language learners).

Survey

The Team designed a biannual participant survey (Appendix B) describing actions and traits that

are specific, evidence-based recommendations for quickly and dramatically improving student

achievement in high-need, low-performing schools. The purpose of this survey, administered

each December and June, is to track RLA participants’ level of exposure to and experience with

these key elements via their Leadership Academy.7 Note that the survey is bound by (and

participants are protected by) Institutional Review Board protocols regarding research on human

subjects. As such, not all RLA participants participated in the survey, but most did; the response

rate has been close to 90%.

Observations

Evaluators observed each RLA’s selection processes and candidate cohort experiences, including

internships and support efforts. These activities helped evaluators understand the support and

guidance provided to each RLA participant. Evaluators conducted a total of 86 formal RLA

observations (for over 230 hours) and attended and/or presented at 26 formal RLA meetings

between March 2011 and October 2013. The goal of the evaluation is to visit each RLA at least

once a month and to observe a variety of activities (e.g., site visits, guest panels, specialized

trainings, weekly content seminars, Advisory Board meetings, mentor principal meetings, LEA

selection processes, induction support sessions, conference presentations, etc.). Please see

Appendix C for the Evaluators’ Observation Log.

7 See RttT evaluation report, Turning Around North Carolina’s Lowest Achieving Schools (2006-2010),

https://publicpolicy.unc.edu/research/TurnaroundSchoolReport_Dec5_Final.pdf.

https://publicpolicy.unc.edu/research/TurnaroundSchoolReport_Dec5_Final.pdf


March 2014


Interviews

Between March 2011 and October 2013, evaluators interacted with and interviewed the RLA

Directors, Executive Coaches, and the majority of participants from each RLA (n=200+) several

times. Evaluators also interviewed a random, convenience-sampled selection of mentor

principals and participant supervisors from each RLA during this same timeframe. Formal and

informal conversations occurred during every formal observation and meeting (n=110+).

Likewise, information was gathered daily via phone calls, emails, and listserv updates. A

standardized format was not used for these discussions. Instead, open-ended questions were the

norm. Most conversations were related to either how the RLA was progressing overall and/or

specifically how the exercise at hand related to the participants’ preparation to be leaders in high-

need schools. Detailed notes were recorded and analyzed after each exchange. These activities

helped evaluators gather a wide range of perspectives on the RLAs for qualitative analyses.

Method

Creswell’s (2009) mixed-methods approach is most appropriate for this evaluation, given the

multiple data collection methods and mixed modes of analysis. Evaluators analyzed each RLA’s

recruitment and selection efforts, curricular and pedagogical techniques, induction and support

strategies, and RLA internal evaluation methods. Artifacts (planning documents, presentations,

dissemination materials, curriculum plans, scopes and sequences, websites, news articles, etc.)

and observational data were analyzed using relevant qualitative methodologies and computer

software when appropriate. These activities helped evaluators understand how candidates are

recruited, selected, inducted, and trained. Please see Appendix D for the Scope of Work and

Logic Map of this initiative.


March 2014


Findings

This section includes findings for each of the specific evaluation questions outlined earlier (i.e.,

RQs 1, 2 and 3). Note that Research Question 1: Do RLAs effectively recruit and train, relative to

the alternatives? has been separated into Research Question 1a: Do RLAs effectively recruit,

relative to the alternatives? and Research Question 1b: Do RLAs effectively train, relative to the

alternatives? In this way, the constructs of recruiting and training can be examined separately.

Also, RQ 2 and RQ 1b are answered out of order to preserve a review of the RLAs that follows

internal initiative continuity: recruitment (RQ 1a), followed by selection (RQ 2), followed by

training (RQ 1b).

Research Question 1a: Do RLAs Effectively Recruit, Relative to the Alternatives?

Knapp and his colleagues concluded that conventional leadership preparation programs have not

attracted enough high-quality candidates to work in high-poverty, low-performing schools,

which are traditionally the schools that are the hardest to staff (Knapp, Copeland & Talbert,

2003). At the same time, Darling-Hammond and her colleagues asserted that recruiting

committed candidates and comprehensively preparing them for the unique realities of leading in

challenging contexts are keys to stabilizing principal turnover in addition to fostering high-

quality teaching and learning (Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, Lapointe & Orr, 2010).

As such, the RLAs have each engaged in careful recruitment and selection processes to ensure

that program participants have the expertise, commitment, and dispositions to serve as

transformational school leaders. Each RLA has worked together with its partner LEA leaders to

identify and recruit individuals who, in their assessment, are deeply committed to improving

low-achieving schools and who are willing to make multiyear, post-academy commitments to

work in said schools and LEAs.

In line with widely recognized alternative principal preparation programs (e.g., New Leaders for

New Schools [NLNS] and New York City Leadership Academy [NYCLA]), each RLA employs

a plan for the deliberate, aggressive recruitment of outstanding school leadership candidates. A

team of LEA members, in conjunction with the RttT grant-funded Executive Directors and

Coaches, developed and conducted broad-based recruitment and selective admissions processes

that have resulted in the identification and selection of RLA participants who present

demonstrable leadership skills and personal academic excellence.8

Table 1 (following page) provides a comparative overview of criteria used by each RLA, by

alternative preparation programs, and by traditional MSA programs in North Carolina to recruit

candidates into their individual pre-service leadership program. As noted, the RLAs do

effectively recruit, relative to the alternatives.

8 For a full description of each RLA’s program-specific method of recruitment, please see North Carolina Regional

Leadership Academies: Final 2012 Activity Report, pp. 12-16 (http://cerenc.org/wp-

content/uploads/2011/10/RLA_First-Year-Report-03-04-13.pdf).




March 2014


Table 1. RLA Recruitment Criteria in Comparison to Other Leadership Preparation Programs

Recruitment Criteria NELA PTLA SLA

Other

Alternative

Preparation

Programs (e.g.,

NYCLA, NLNS)

NC

Tradi-

tional

MSA*

1. Established reputation (i.e.,

known entity, word of mouth,

graduates, etc.)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2. Brochures and informational

materials Yes Yes Yes Yes ^

3. “Tapping” process in LEAs in

which people are encouraged to

apply

Yes Yes Yes Yes ^

4. Website information Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

5. Email blasts and LEA updates Yes Yes Yes Yes ^

6. Local, state and national

presentations Yes Yes Yes Yes ^

7. Newspaper accounts, media

coverage and various public

relations press releases throughout

the year (including promotional

videos)

Yes Yes Yes Yes ^

8. Collaboration with partnering

LEAs Yes Yes Yes Yes ^

9. LEA based information sessions Yes Yes Yes Yes ^

10. Superintendent endorsement Yes Yes Yes ^ No

11. Superintendent meeting updates Yes Yes Yes ^ No

12. School Board presentations Yes Yes Yes ^ No

13. Partnerships with organizations

(e.g., NC Education Consortiums,

Teach For America, Historically

Black Colleges/Universities, etc.)

Yes Yes Yes Yes ^

14. Commitment (initially and

ongoing) to changing, improving,

and transforming schools

Yes Yes Yes Yes ^

15. Willingness to make multi-year,

post-academy commitment Yes Yes Yes ^

^ (PFs

+ do)

Notes:

*MSA=Master’s in School Administration

^=The extent to which certain programs do and/or do not implement these recruitment criteria varies widely

from none (i.e., not at all) to some. +PF=North Carolina Principal Fellows agree to a 4-year leadership commitment post-graduation.

The RLA process of intentionally identifying and recruiting outstanding candidates (i.e.,

experienced teachers with strong teaching and leadership skills who are committed to

educational change) benefitted from strategic exposure tactics and publicity campaigns in

partnering LEAs. As a result of these efforts, a large number of people expressed interest and


March 2014


completed the application process over the past three years (189 participants selected from a total

of 962 applications yields an overall acceptance rate of less than 20%).

Overall, the recruitment efforts for each RLA are to be commended. Advertisement has been

good and the RLAs have yielded a fairly high number of applicants (whether of sufficient high

quality and quantity to fill necessary slots in the schools is yet to be determined). Responses on

the biannual survey indicate that the majority of Cohort 1, Cohort 2, and Cohort 3 members left a

position in education (most as classroom teachers) to become RLA participants.

Research Question 2: What Impact Does each RLA’s Selection Criteria have on Program

Effectiveness?9

Impact is difficult to assess at this stage of the initiative, and a more complete response to this

research question may not be possible until more extensive measures of program effectiveness

are available (e.g., after a critical mass of cohort members have completely transitioned from

their programs and into leadership positions in their schools). What can be assessed at this point,

however, are the degree to which the programs have been selective, and the mechanisms through

which that selectivity occurs.

Selectivity

The recruitment and selection process of each RLA yielded fairly selective and competitive

acceptance rates (Table 2, following page). The RLA’s overall acceptance rate of 31% is

comparable to nationally recognized programs such as NYCLA and NLNS. They are also much

lower than traditional MSA programs in North Carolina, some of which have few applicants

(less than 25 applicants for 20 slots) and/or report high acceptance rates (75% or higher). The

Principal Fellows Program in North Carolina (NC PFP) had an acceptance rate of 56% in 2011

(60 recipients from 107 applicants), an acceptance rate of 72% in 2012 (56 recipients from 78

applicants), and an acceptance rate of 60% in 2013 (33 recipients from 55 applicants). The

average acceptance rate for the NC PFP over the past three years has been 63%. In fairness to all

of these programs, a larger number of potential participants do inquire, but after asking about

minimum requirements (e.g., tuition costs, prior teaching experience, undergraduate GPA, etc.),

decide not to formally apply. Unfortunately, there is not a valid way of tracking such numbers.

9 Research Questions 2 and 1b are answered out of order to preserve a review of the RLAs that follows internal

initiative continuity: recruitment (RQ 1a), followed by selection (RQ 2), followed by training (RQ 1b).


March 2014


Table 2. Number of Participants who were Accepted Versus Number of Candidates who Applied

RLA

2011–12 Cohort 1

Acceptance Rate

2012–13 Cohort 2

Acceptance Rate

2013–14 Cohort 3

Acceptance Rate

NELA 24/38 = 63%* 21/41 = 51% 20/28 = 71%**

PTLA 21/173 = 12% 20/169 = 12% 22/197 = 11%

SLA 20/110 = 18% 21/79 = 27% 20/127 = 16%

* For NELA’s Cohort 1, 38 individuals were recommended by their superintendents. Twenty-four were admitted

and twenty-one graduated. NELA dismissed three of the participants from the program. From a quality assurance

perspective, they were not performing at an acceptable level. NELA’s Cohort 2 went through the multi-tier selection

process. Even at that, NELA has a significantly higher acceptance rate than PTLA and SLA. With such a smaller

initial candidate pool, two questions surface: 1) Is NELA able to identify enough high-quality applicants/

candidates?; and 2) What can/is being done to increase the number of candidates who apply to NELA?

** For NELA’s Cohort 3 (2013-14), the superintendents from the 14 partnering counties were asked to send only

their very best and brightest. NELA worked closely with the superintendents to identify the characteristics of

candidates that would be a good fit. As a result, they feel as though they started with a better/deeper pool. Twenty

participants from a pool of twenty-eight were selected.

RLA Selection Processes

Each RLA created “an innovative selection process that is fair and rigorous, assesses more than a

candidate’s experience and education, and adds a new component that enables interviewers to

measure a candidate’s core beliefs” (Huckaby, 2012, p. 31). For a full description of each RLA’s

program-specific selection process, please see North Carolina Regional Leadership Academies:

Final 2012 Activity Report (pp. 16-21).

Of the three RLAs, NELA’s is the most university-centered. This is appropriate as participants

are applying for and will receive an MSA degree from NCSU. The selection processes for PTLA

and SLA are more decentralized (i.e., more decisions are made at the LEA level). Each RLA has

made modifications based on experiences with Cohorts 1 and 2. Of the three RLAs’ selection

criteria, one is not necessarily better than the other. All three contain some similarities and some

differences, all three use multiple measures, and all three allow for deeper analyses into an

applicant’s qualifications. However, in comparison to the selection processes of most university-

based principal preparation programs nationwide, the RLAs collectively are much more

deliberate and intentionally focused, more intricately involved, and more thorough in their

selection criteria. For example, most colleges and universities (not all, as there are exceptions

across the nation) only require standard paperwork (e.g., resume, transcripts, letters of

recommendation, GRE/MAT scores, background check and perhaps a statement of purpose). In

person, face-to-face interactions and/or interviews are rare and are not required for application

and/or admission. MSA faculty members usually review the materials via a standard rubric, and

assign points based on minimum qualifications such as years of classroom teaching experience

(without regard to and/or knowledge of whether that educational experience was deemed good or

bad, effective or detrimental).

Table 3 (following page) provides a comparative overview of criteria used by each RLA, by

alternative preparation programs, and by traditional MSA programs in North Carolina to select

candidates into their individual pre-service leadership program. As noted, the RLA selection

criteria are more robust and rigorous relative to the alternatives.


March 2014


Table 3. RLA Selection Criteria in Comparison to Other Leadership Preparation Programs

Selection Criteria NELA PTLA SLA

Other

Alternative

Preparation

Programs (e.g.,

NYCLA, NLNS)

NC

Tradi-

tional

MSA*

1. Application form (including transcripts,

scores, and criminal background check) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2. Resume of professional experience (some

minimal requirements) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

3. Letters of recommendation Yes Yes Yes Yes ^

4. Purpose statements/Letters of interest Yes Yes Yes Yes ^

5. Writing sample/educational essay Yes Yes Yes Yes ^

6. Master’s degree with minimum 3.0 GPA No No No Yes No

7. Superintendent’s nomination Yes Yes Yes ^ No

8. A homework assignment (e.g., 2- to 3-

minute videotaped presentation on “Why I

want to be a leader in a high needs school”)

No Yes Yes ^ No

9. Completion of self-assessment surveys

(e.g., grit/perseverance/passion and

leadership responsibilities)

Yes No No ^ No

10. Assessment Day (including role play,

timed writing activity, scenario-based

simulations, team decision making process,

presentations, and response to scenarios)

Yes Yes Yes ^ No

11. Group Q&A sessions and interviews

with panel of LEA partners Yes Yes Yes ^ No

12. One-on-one Interviews Yes Yes Yes ^ No

13. Commitment to closing the achievement

gap, professional resilience, strong

communication, willingness/ability to be

self-reflective, possession of instructional

knowledge/expertise, commitment to

continuous learning, professional integrity

Yes Yes Yes ^ ^

14. Commitment to multi-year, post-

academy employment/leadership position Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Note: ^=the extent to which certain programs do and/or do not implement these selection criteria varies widely from

none (i.e., not at all) to some.

Results of the Selection Process

Overall, the RLA selection process for Cohort 1 (n=65) yielded a fairly diverse group of

participants. Two-thirds (68%) are female, half (50%) are Caucasian, and two-fifths (42%) are

African-American. Half (54%) possess a master’s degree already (seven in education, five in

reading, four in school administration, four in special education, and the rest in a range of

subjects from Curriculum and Instruction to counseling). One-third (32%) were elementary

education majors during their undergraduate studies, while one-sixth (15%) were English majors.

Generally speaking, NELA participants are slightly younger (33 years old compared to the RLA


March 2014


Cohort 1 average of 37 years old), more likely to be female (76% compared to the RLA Cohort 1

average of 68%), and less likely to have master’s degrees (33% compared to the RLA Cohort 1

average of 58%). This is not surprising since NELA is a two-year principal preparation program

leading to an MSA degree. Relative to the cohort average, a larger proportion of the SLA

participants are Caucasian (66% compared to the RLA Cohort 1 average of 50%), and more have

advanced degrees (75% compared to the RLA Cohort 1 average of 58%). Table 4 includes

descriptive statistics for Cohort 1.

Table 4. Demographic Data for RLA Cohort 1

Demographic

Characteristic

All Cohort 1

Interns NELA PTLA SLA

Age Range 25-54 25–48 29-47 28–54

Age Median 35 33 36 36

Male 30% 24% 29% 38%

Female 70% 76% 71% 63%

Black 45% 52% 57% 27%

White 46% 33% 38% 66%

Asian 3% 10% 0% 0%

American Indian 2% 0% 0% 7%

Other Ethnicity 4% 5% 5% 0%

Master’s Degree 60%

(37/62)

33%

(7/21)

71%

(15/21)

75%

(15/20)

Overall, the RLA selection process for Cohort 2 (n=62) again yielded a fairly diverse group of

participants: two-thirds are Caucasian (66%), over two-thirds are female (69%), and a third

(42%) are African-American. Two-fifths (42%) possess a master’s degree already (in a range of

subjects from education to reading, administration, special education, and even counseling).

One-third (36%) were elementary education majors during their undergraduate studies.

As was the case in Cohort 1, NELA participants are slightly younger (36 years old compared to

the RLA Cohort 2 average of 38 years old) and less likely to have master’s degrees (14%

compared to the RLA Cohort 2 average of 42%). Once again, relative to the cohort average, a

larger proportion of the SLA participants are Caucasian (81% compared to the RLA Cohort 2

average of 69%), but unlike Cohort 1, a larger proportion of SLA participants also are female

(81% compared to the RLA Cohort 2 average of 69%). A larger proportion of the PTLA

participants are African-American (45% compared to the RLA average of 32%) and have

advanced degrees (75% compared to the RLA Cohort 2 average of 42%). Table 5 (following

page) includes descriptive statistics for Cohort 2.


March 2014



Demographic

Characteristic

All Cohort 2


Age Range 25-59 26-53 25-59 27-51


Male 31% 38% 35% 19%

Female 69% 62% 65% 81%

Black 32% 33% 45% 19%

White 66% 67% 55% 77%

Asian 0% 0% 0% 0%




(26/62)

14%

(3/21)

75%

(15/20)

38%

(8/21)

The RLA selection process for Cohort 3 (n=62) once more yielded a fairly diverse group of

participants. Three-fourths (75%) are female, two-fifths (61%) are Caucasian, one third (35%)

are African-American, and half (50%) possess a master’s degree already. Once again, NELA

participants are slightly younger (35 years old compared to the RLA Cohort 3 average of 36

years old), more likely to be female (85% compared to the RLA Cohort 3 average of 75%), and

less likely to have master’s degrees (35% compared to the RLA Cohort 3 average of 50%). More

of the SLA participants are slightly older (37 years old compared to the RLA Cohort 3 average

of 36 years old) and Caucasian (70% compared to the RLA Cohort 3 average of 61%). More of

the PTLA participants are male (36% compared to the RLA Cohort 3 average of 25%) and have

advanced degrees (59% compared to the RLA Cohort 3 average of 50%). Table 6 includes

descriptive statistics for Cohort 3, and Table 7 (following page) includes descriptive statistics for

all three Cohorts combined. In comparison to other traditional MSA programs in North Carolina,

the RLA participants tend to be slightly older, slightly more racially diverse, and much more

likely to already have a master’s degree. In some regards, this makes sense, since traditional

MSA programs in North Carolina are Master’s degree-granting programs.


Demographic

Characteristic

All Cohort 3


Age Range 26-49 26-48 26-49 27-48


Male 25% 15% 36% 25%

Female 75% 85% 64% 75%

Black 35% 40% 41% 25%

White 61% 60% 54% 70%

Asian 0% 0% 0% 0%




(31/62)

35%

(7/20)

59%

(13/22)

55%

(11/20)


March 2014


Table 7. Demographic Data for RLA Cohorts 1, 2, and 3

Demographic

Characteristic

All Cohort

Interns

NELA

(Cohorts

1, 2, and 3)

PTLA

(Cohorts

1, 2, and 3)

SLA

(Cohorts

1, 2, and 3)

Age Range 25-59 25-53 25-59 27-54


Male 29% 26% 33% 27%

Female 71% 74% 67% 73%

Black 38% 42% 48% 24%

White 58% 53% 49% 71%

Asian 1% 3% 0% 0%




(94/186)

27%

(17/62)

68%

(43/63)

56%

(34/61)

Research Question 1b: Do RLAs Effectively Train, Relative to the Alternatives?10

The three essential features of effective leadership preparation programs are: (1) having a

program philosophy that clearly articulates a theory of action, (2) having a strong curriculum

focused on instruction and school improvement, and (3) having well-designed and integrated

coursework and field work (Orr, O’Doherty, & Barber, 2012). Each RLA has committed to

designing and implementing a fully comprehensive leadership preparation program that

incorporates these features by including the following research-based program elements

(Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007; Davis, Darling-Hammond,

LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005; Taylor, Cordeiro, & Chrispeels, 2009; Young, Crow, Ogawa, &

Murphy, 2009):

Rigorous recruitment and selection

Cohorts and internships

o Cohort-based experiences

o Weekly, full-cohort, continued learning during the residency year

o Full-time, year-long clinical residency experiences

Curricula and seminars

o An action-research, case-study curriculum focus

10

Note: Research Questions 2 and 1b are answered out of order to preserve a review of the RLAs that follows

internal initiative continuity: recruitment (RQ 1a), followed by selection (RQ 2), followed by training (RQ 1b).


March 2014


Support systems (coaching, mentoring, and supervising)

o Multi-faceted support structures

o Dynamic feedback and improvement loops

Structures for evaluation and improvement

Job placement and induction support

The degree to which each RLA addresses the first of these elements (recruitment and selection)

has been addressed in previous sections, and the degree to which each RLA addresses the final

element (job placement and induction) will be addressed in a later section.11

Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, Lapointe and Orr (2010) note that, historically, principal

preparation programs have been heavily weighted toward technical considerations:

organizational management, administrative requirements, logistical and legal matters. At the

same time, much less attention has been given to questions of teaching and learning. Likewise,

few programmatic resources have been dedicated to explicit considerations regarding issues of

power and privilege, and how they lead to disparate educational opportunities and access (Oakes,

Lipton, Anderson & Stillman, 2012). Yet, according to Marshall and Oliva (2010),

deconstructing the ways that economic, racial, and political conditions shape schools’ potential

to interrupt patterns of inequality is central to cultivating schools that advance principles of

social justice.

The RLAs are actually doing this. They are intentionally and singularly focused on training a

new kind of leader for high-needs schools (i.e., candidates knowingly and willingly committed to

equity, candidates with a sense of urgency and personal accountability for student learning,

candidates with the will and the skill to turnaround failing schools). Schools entering turnaround

(i.e., demonstrated low student achievement for multiple years) face significantly more

challenges than typical schools in the state. McFarland and Preston (2010) report that in North

Carolina,

on average, turnaround schools had significantly lower performance composites and

graduation rates, and slightly lower percentages of teachers with full licensure than typical

high schools. Suspension rates, the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price

lunch, and the percentages of non-white students were all significantly higher in turnaround

schools (p.2).

Unique circumstances like these warrant specialized contextual knowledge and unique

dispositions on the part of the leader to turn the tide from negative trajectories to positive ones.

All three RLAs are deliberately working to equip their candidates with instructional leadership

skills, with resiliency skills, and with transformational change skills. Throughout each RLA, the

emphasis on high-need schools and the strategies needed to turnaround low performance is

prominent and palpable.

11

Fidelity of implementation of each of the other elements is addressed in the North Carolina Regional Leadership

Academies: Final 2012 Activity Report, pp. 21-55.


March 2014


For example, when asked to rate themselves on four school turnaround leadership traits (Papa &

English, 2011), at two different times (December and June), on average, all RLA Cohort 1 and

Cohort 2 graduates indicated an increase in their internal beliefs (see Tables 8, below, and 9,

following page). Note that, even though these were self-reports and averaged scores, the trend in

the data does indicate that RLA participants grew in these four areas during the second half of

their Leadership Academy experience (i.e., interns were surveyed in December and then again in

June; unfortunately, no baseline data were collected the previous July to show a year’s worth of

development). However, most RLA graduates did see themselves moving from the “developing”

stage of each turnaround trait to the higher “proficiency” stage. The RLAs are to be commended

for helping their participants grow in their internal beliefs, determination, and sense of efficacy.

Even at that, questions remain. For example, are the RLAs responsible for student growth on

self-reported impressions of leadership traits? Do final scores matter more, or does growth matter

more? Do higher or lower starting scores reveal anything about the programs?

Table 8. Change in Self-Rating (December 2011 versus June 2012) on School Turnaround

Leadership Traits, Cohort 1

Trait NELA PTLA SLA

Self-efficacy and optimism (rejection of status quo/failure,

acceptance of responsibility)

2.42–2.93

(+0.51)

2.92–3.57

(+0.65)

2.71–3.63

(+0.92)

Open-mindedness and pragmatism (contextual knowledge and

adaptation, ability to apply theory to practice).

1.95–2.93

(+0.98)

2.77–3.43

(+0.66)

2.36–3.50

(+1.14)

Resiliency and energy (persistent determination to improve

student learning)

2.53–3.40

(+0.87)

3.31–3.86

(+0.55)

3.14–3.69

(+0.55)

Competence and skill sets (instructional leadership that builds

rapport and capacity, knowledge of literacy, change processes,

and human motivation)

2.26–3.33

(+1.07)

2.77–3.64

(+0.87)

2.57–3.50

(+0.93)

Scale: 1=No Evidence, 2=Developing, 3=Proficient, 4=Accomplished, and 5=Distinguished

Note: Because NELA is a two-year program, NELA participants were initially surveyed after three semesters and a

summer’s worth of academy experience. Because PTLA and SLA are one-year programs, PTLA and SLA

participants were initially surveyed after one semester and a summer’s worth of academy experience. The difference

in timing and exposure may or may not have impacted these self-reported scores in growth and development.


March 2014


Table 9. Change in Self-Rating (December 2012 versus June 2013) on School Turnaround

Leadership Traits, Cohort 2

Trait NELA PTLA SLA

Self-efficacy and optimism (rejection of status quo/failure,

acceptance of responsibility)

2.63-3.45

(+0.82)

2.72-3.25

(+0.53)

3.20-3.81

(+0.61)

Open-mindedness and pragmatism (contextual knowledge and

adaptation, ability to apply theory to practice).

2.89-3.20

(+0.31)

2.56-3.10

(+0.54)

2.80-3.52

(+0.72)

Resiliency and energy (persistent determination to improve

student learning)

2.95-3.80

(+0.85)

2.89-3.40

(+0.51)

3.33-3.81

(+0.48)

Competence and skill sets (instructional leadership that builds

rapport and capacity, knowledge of literacy, change processes,

and human motivation)

2.42-3.20

(+0.78)

2.11-3.20

(+1.09)

2.80-3.62

(+0.82)

Scale: 1=No Evidence, 2=Developing, 3=Proficient, 4=Accomplished, and 5=Distinguished

Note: Because NELA is a two-year program, NELA participants were initially surveyed after three semesters and a

summer’s worth of academy experience. Because PTLA and SLA are one-year programs, PTLA and SLA

participants were initially surveyed after one semester and a summer’s worth of academy experience. The difference

in timing and exposure may or may not have impacted these self-reported scores in growth and development.

Research Question 3: Do RLA Graduates Find Placements in Targeted Schools/Districts?

The goal of the RLAs is to increase the number of principals qualified to lead transformational

change in low-performing schools in both rural and urban areas. As such, RLA interns receive

job placement support, provided by the Leadership Academy in conjunction with participating

LEAs, to ensure appropriate matches of aspiring leaders to the schools in which they are placed

(see Appendices E, F, and G for Cohort 1’s, 2’s, and 3’s Internship Placement Schools plus

Summary and Raw Statistics for these schools). Table 10 (following page) indicates that interns

from each of the three cohorts, and from each of the three RLAs, have been placed in high-needs

schools where, on average, two-thirds (66.2%) of the student populations are eligible for free or

reduced lunch, where overall average Reading/English I scores are less than 63%, and where

overall average Mathematics/Algebra I scores hover around the 72% mark.


March 2014


Table 10. RLA Internship Placements: Free/Reduced Lunch, Size, English, and Mathematics

Scores

Placement Site

Characteristic RLA

Internship Year Average

for Cohorts

1, 2, & 3

Cohort 1

(2011-2012)

Cohort 2

(2012-2013)

Cohort 3

(2013-2014)

% Students

Free/Reduced Lunch

NELA

PTLA

SLA

68.7%

75.8%

68.5%

60.2%

66.6%

63.3%

62.5%

72.4%

57.8%

63.8%

71.6%

63.2%

Overall 71.0% 63.4% 64.2% 66.2%

School Size

NELA

PTLA

SLA

550

579

615

668

739

711

520

679

662

579

666

663

Overall 581 706 620 636

Reading/English I

Scores

NELA

PTLA

SLA

59.7%

55.6%

64.6%

64.8%

60.9%

66.8%

66.7%

58.1%

69.3%

63.7%

58.2%

66.9%

Overall 59.9% 64.2% 64.7% 62.9%

Mathematics/Algebra

I Scores

NELA

PTLA

SLA

74.0%

67.3%

70.1%

74.8%

71.1%

71.8%

71.1%

72.2%

78.6%

73.3%

70.2%

73.5%

Overall 70.5% 72.6% 74.0% 72.4%

According to the original RFP for the RLAs, the expectation is that “successful candidates will

be placed and serve in high-needs schools” (i.e., high-poverty and low-performing NC schools).

Table 11 indicates that graduates from the first two cohorts from each of the three RLAs have

been placed in leadership positions.

Table 11. RLA Graduate Job Placements

Cohort NELA Graduates PTLA Graduates SLA Graduates Overall

Cohort 1

– June

2012

n=21

6 Principals

8 Assistant Princ

3 Central Office

2 Teacher/Facilitator

2 Left RLA Region

n=21

3 Principals

14 Assistant Princ

1 Central Office


2 Left RLA Region

n=20

8 Principals

9 Assistant Princ

1 Central Office


2 Left RLA Region

17 Principals

31 Assistant Princ

5 Central Office


6 Left RLA Region

n=62

Cohort 2

– June

2013

n=21

0 Principals

18 Assistant Princ

1 Central Office


0 Left RLA Region

n=20

0 Principals

13 Assistant Princ

2 Central Office


0 Left RLA Region

n=21

2 Principals

17 Assistant Princ

0 Central Office


0 Left RLA Region

2 Principals

48 Assistant Princ

3 Central Office


0 Left RLA Region

n=62

TOTALS

(as of

October

2013)

n=42

6 Principals

26 Assistant Princ

4 Central Office


2 Left RLA Region

n=41

3 Principals

27 Assistant Princ

3 Central Office


2 Left RLA Region

n=41

10 Principals

26 Assistant Princ

1 Central Office


2 Left RLA Region

19 Principals

79 Assistant Princ

8 Central Office


6 Left RLA Region

n=124

(15%)

(64%)

(6%)

(10%)

(5%)


March 2014


Table 12 indicates that graduates from the first two cohorts from each of the three RLAs are

serving in high-need schools (see Appendices H, I, and J for Cohort 1’s and 2’s Job Placement

Schools plus Summary and Raw Statistics for these schools).

Table 12. RLA Job Placements: Free and Reduced Lunch, School Size, English, and

Mathematics Scores

Placement Site

Characteristic RLA

Job Placements

Overall

Cohort 1

(Fall 2013)

Cohort 2

(Fall 2013)

% Students

Free/Reduced

Lunch

NELA

PTLA

SLA

77.9%

74.7%

67.4%

60.8%

61.7%

66.6%

69.3%

68.2%

67.0%

Overall 73.3% 63.0% 68.2%

School Size

NELA

PTLA

SLA

480

692

770

572

804

724

526

748

747

Overall 647 700 674

English Scores

NELA

PTLA

SLA

55.9%

55.3%

65.8%

66.0%

67.8%

65.2%

60.9%

61.6%

65.5%

Overall 59.0% 66.3% 62.6%

Mathematics

Scores

NELA

PTLA

SLA

66.4%

68.9%

76.3%

75.1%

74.3%

72.7%

70.7%

71.6%

74.5%

Overall 70.5% 74.0% 72.3%

Trends in the data for the past three years indicate that Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 graduates acquired

jobs in schools that are struggling and where, on average, more than two-thirds (68.2%) of the

students receive free or reduced-price lunch, where the proportion of at- or above-grade level

Reading/English I scores hover around 62.6%, and where the proportion of at- or above-grade

level Mathematics/Algebra I scores hover just above the 72% mark. The range of scores and the

range of growth in these schools are great. These data are in line with high-need, low-performing

schools. Looking back and charting demographic and test score data, most job placement schools

reveal a trend of steady, positive growth (albeit small, in many cases). Some schools had

phenomenal growth (+60.3% increase in Reading/English I scores in one school, and +50.0%

increase in Mathematics/Algebra I scores in another), while others have shown little to no

growth (less than 5% increase). Some schools revealed percentage gains of more than 10% to

15% in one subject but not in the other. A few of the schools where RLA graduates secured jobs

actually reported a three-year trend of negative growth (12% decrease in Reading/English I

scores in one school, and 15.4% decrease in Mathematics/Algebra I scores in another). This is

not necessarily as alarming for job placements as it was for internship placements. In fact, since

the stated purpose of the RLAs is to “increase the number of principals qualified to lead

transformational change in low-performing schools in both rural and urban areas” (NCDPI,

2010, p.10), one could argue that these are exactly the type of schools where RLA graduates

should obtain job placements (e.g., DST schools).


March 2014


Even though 95% of RLA graduates are individuals who claim to be deeply committed to

improving persistently low-achieving schools and make a three-year, post-degree commitment to

work in high-need schools throughout North Carolina, actually securing administrative positions

has been a challenge for some. For example, for SLA, although there is strong collaboration and

tangible commitment to leadership development by the 13 partnering LEAs and a real

willingness to sustain SLA beyond RttT funding, job placements do not happen without some

SLA coaxing and negotiating. Likewise, for PTLA, conversations are constantly ongoing to

revitalize interest and support of PTLA, while re-emphasizing the goals and outcomes outlined

by the RttT grant in terms of the hiring of PTLA graduates in assistant principal/principal

positions. The placement situation is similar for NELA where each LEA signs a MOU

(Memorandum of Understanding) stating that the LEA will “utilize Leadership Academy

graduates as the first line of replacements for assistant principal and principal openings in LEAs’

high needs schools.” The fact that this has been difficult is worthy of note. Aspects to consider

moving forward include: (1) the strength of the partnerships with certain LEAs (Are some LEAs

more committed than others? Why? How?); (2) the politics of the region (Who hires whom?

Why? How? When? Where?); and (3) the strengths and background of the RLA graduate (Does

the RLA graduate feel ready, willing, and able to assume a critical leadership position right

now?).

Through their RLA experience, Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 members should now have the

knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be effective leaders of change, using data to focus on

results and reflect on practice. Having said that, several questions about the placement of RLA

graduates still remain:

1. How much influence does each RLA actually have in the hiring process for individual LEAs?

2. Even though RLA participants are specifically prepared to lead in high-need schools, should

every graduate be placed in a high-poverty, low-performing NC school?

3. Research indicates that it takes between three to six years to turn around failing schools. How

should the RLA evaluation track/assess this?

The answers to these and similar questions are beyond the scope of this evaluation. Further

evaluation will continue to monitor, observe, and track the placements of RLA participants and

graduates. Descriptive data regarding their schools will also be collected, disaggregated, and

analyzed; however, others in positions of authority and those with decision-making power will

need to wrestle with and address such questions moving forward. The final question goes well

beyond the timeframe of the RttT grant and evaluation.

Research Question 4: Are RLAs Cost-Effective Relative to Alternative Programs?

As noted above, the Evaluation Team is preparing a cost-effectiveness analysis of the RLAs,

relative to extant comparable leadership development programs. This analysis will be part of a

separate report (expected to be completed in early spring 2014) that will include cost-

effectiveness analyses of several other RttT initiatives. When completed, this analysis will

provide a basis for value comparisons between RLAs and other models.


March 2014


Conclusions and Next Steps

Because data on the long-term and distal outcomes of the RLAs are not yet available, the

purpose of this 2013 activity report is to continue to address the evaluation questions by

describing the program components of each RLA in detail. The report first assessed fidelity of

implementation to the aspects outlined in the original Request for Proposal, with the conclusion

that the RLAs have been designed to be consistent with literature on executive development,

adult learning theory, and educational leadership. Aspiring principals in each RLA have been led

through a preparation program (aligned to the North Carolina Standards for School Executives)

designed around several research-based components (e.g., cohort-based experiences; full-time,

year-long clinical residency experience; job placement and induction support; etc.).

With a better understanding of the high degree to which each RLA’s actual implementation

matches its initial proposed design, the ongoing evaluation will continue to document fidelity of

implementation and track intern and graduate placements, and in addition, it will probe deeper

into three specific program areas:

1. Sustainability. RttT funding ends in 2014. A required and competitive priority from the

original RFP included a “commitment to and plan for project sustainability beyond the

funding period.” In their response, RLAs were asked to define sustainability measures. The

question going forward is: How will each RLA sustain this project after the grant funding

ends? To that end, the process has begun for the RLAs individually and collectively.

Collectively, multiple presentations and collaborative efforts by each RLA and their

graduates to the North Carolina Department of Instruction (NCDPI), to the State Board of

Education (SBE and to the General Assembly of North Carolina (GA) have garnered lots of

interest and some support. For example, HB 990, sponsored by Representatives Blackwell,

Moffitt, and Queen, earmarked two million dollars ($2,000,000) for the 2014-2015 fiscal

years to establish the Western Regional Leadership Academy. “The purpose of the academy

is to increase the number of principals and assistant principals qualified to lead

transformational change in schools in both rural and urban areas, including, without

limitation, lowest-achieving schools in nine counties.” Similarly, Section 3.5 of HB 393

entitled Regional Leadership Academies stated the following:

There is appropriated from the General Fund to the Department of Public Instruction the

sum of eight million dollars ($8,000,000) for the 2014-2105 fiscal year to provide

recurring funding for Regional Leadership Academies. These funds shall be used to

increase the number of principals prepared to lead transformational change in the

State’s lowest achieving schools by continuing to fund the Northeast, Sandhills, and

Piedmont Triad Academies.

Individually, NELA has been more successful at securing funds than PTLA and SLA. All

three RLAs are hopeful that NELA’s selection for the federal School Leadership Program

(SLP) grant will provide momentum at the state level to possibly provide financial assistance

for the RLAs in 2014.


March 2014


NELA

o Submitted a grant proposal for a 2013 USED School Leadership Program; awarded

$4.7 million over next five years to continue NELA 2.0. SLP grants “support the

development, enhancement, and expansion of innovative programs to recruit, train,

and mentor principals and assistant principals for high-need schools and districts.

Grantees include school districts, institutes of higher education and non-profit

organizations. These five-year grants help prepare individuals to meet state

certification requirements to become principals or assistant principals. Projects also

provide professional development to current principals and assistant principals in

high-need school districts.”

o Crafted and received MOUs from most of the 14 partnering LEAs served by NELA

committing to fund up to $93,000 for each future NELA member.

o Seeking approval from NCDPI and the SBE to be included in any RttT extension of

funds if North Carolina is provided an extension.

o Established a “Sustainability” Committee, including partnering LEAs, that meets

regularly to discuss and explore possible funding agencies and future opportunities.

PTLA

o Submitted a grant proposal for a 2013 USED School Leadership Program but was

not funded.





SLA





2. Mentor and Coach selection and training. The original RLA RFP describes “multi-faceted

support structures, involving a mentor with extensive successful school leadership

experience, a Leadership Academy supervisor, and potentially, an executive coach. Although

the roles may be blended or otherwise modified according to the plan, all coaches, mentors,

and supervisors will be carefully selected and provided with initial training and ongoing

support . . . Interns will complete full-time, year-long clinical residency experiences

including the recruitment, training, and supervision of candidate mentors and coaches.” As

such, what is each RLA doing to ensure “good intern/mentor/coach/school site matches?”

What do mentor principals and coaches receive with regard to ongoing training? And, are

ineffective mentors and coaches replaced? If so, how, when, and why? If not, why not?

3. Induction support. Job placement and induction support in the original RFP entails the RLAs

“working with the participating school districts to ensure appropriate matches of aspiring


March 2014


leaders to the schools in which they are placed and to continue professional development

through a two-year induction period, during which Leadership Academy principals continue

to engage with their cohort, mentor, and coach in furthering their leadership skills.”

Therefore, what is each RLA doing to provide ongoing support, mentoring, and advice

through job placement?


March 2014


References

Brown, K. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a transformative

framework and andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, XLII(5), 700–745.

Clark, D. C., & Clark, S. N. (1996). Better preparation of educational leaders. Educational

Researcher, 25(8), 18–20.

Cordeiro, P., & Smith-Sloan, E. (1995, April). Apprenticeships for administrative interns:

Learning to talk like a principal. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Crawford, J. (1998). Changes in administrative licensure: 1991–1996. UCEA Review, 39(3), 8–

10.

Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3rd

ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Crow, G., & Matthews, L. (1998). Finding one’s way: How mentoring can lead to dynamic

leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing

school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development

programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Darling-Hammond, L., Meyerson, D., Lapointe, M., & Orr, M. (2010). Preparing principals for

a changing world: Lessons from effective school leadership programs. San Francisco,

CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership

study: Developing effective principals—Phase one: Review of research. Stanford, CA:

Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Dorn, S. M., Papalewis, R., & Brown, R. (1995). Educators earning their doctorates: Doctoral

student perceptions regarding cohesiveness and persistence. Education, 116(2), 305–314.

Hale, E. L., & Moorman, H. N. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national perspective on

policy and program innovations. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Huckaby, D. (2012). Hiring for attitude. School Administrator, 7(69), 30–35.

Knapp, M., Copeland, M., & Talbert, J. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective tools for school

and district leaders (research report). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and

Policy.


March 2014


Kolb, D. A., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1999). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new

directions. In R. J. Sternberg, & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive learning and

thinking styles. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Marshall, C., & Oliva, M. (Eds.). (2010). Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in

education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

McFarland, J., & Preston, J. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of turnaround efforts in low-

performing high schools. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State Board of Education and North

Carolina Department of Public Instruction.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and

Continuing Education, 74, 5–12.

Murphy, J. (Ed.). (1993). Preparing tomorrow’s school leaders: Alternative designs. University

Park, PA: University Council for Educational Administration.

Murphy, J. (2002, April). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(3), 176–191.

Murphy, J. (2006). Preparing school leaders. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Muth, R., & Barnett, B. (2001). Making the case for professional preparation: Using research

program improvement and political support. Educational Leadership and Administration:

Teaching and Program Development, 13, 109–120.

New Leaders for New Schools (NLNS) (2009). Principal effectiveness: A new principalship to

drive student achievement, teacher effectiveness, and school turnaround. New York, NY:

New Leaders for New Schools.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) (2010). North Carolina RttT

Proposal. Raleigh, NC: Department of Public Instruction.

Oakes, J., Lipton, M., Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2012). Teaching to change the world (4th

edition). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Orr, M. T., O’Doherty, A., and Barber, M. (2012). Designing Purposeful and Coherent

Leadership Preparation Curriculum: A Curriculum Mapping Guide. Charlottesville, VA:

University Council for Educational Administration.

Papa, R., & English, F. (2011). Turnaround principals for underperforming schools. New York:

Rowman & Littlefield.

Taylor, D.L., Cordeiro, P., & Chrispeels, J.H. (2009). Pedagogy. In M.D. Young, G.M. Crow, J.

Murphy, & R.T. Ogawa (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of school leaders

(pp. 319-370). New York, NY: Routledge.


March 2014


Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (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.

Young, M. D., Crow, G., Ogawa, R., & Murphy, J. (2009). The handbook of research on the

education of school leaders. New York, NY: Routledge.


March 2014


List of Appendices


Academies

Appendix B. Regional Leadership Academies Biannual Participant Survey

Appendix C. RLA Evaluators’ Observation Log

Appendix D. Regional Leadership Academies Scope of Work and Logic Map of Initiative

Appendix E. Cohort 1, Cohort 2, and Cohort 3 RLA Participants and Internship Placement

Schools

Appendix F. Summary Statistics Cohort 1’s, Cohort 2’s, and Cohort 3’s Internship Placement

Schools

Appendix G. Raw Statistics for Cohort 1’s, Cohort 2’s, and Cohort 3’s Internship Placement

Schools

Appendix H. Job Placements for RLA Cohort 1 and Cohort 2

Appendix I. Summary Statistics for Cohort 1’s and Cohort 2’s Job Placement Schools

Appendix J. Raw Statistics for Cohort 1’s and Cohort 2’s Job Placement Schools


March 2014



Academies

I. Background Information

Effective school leadership is the key to school improvement (Fuller, Baker, Young, 2007;

Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). With an estimated 50% of NC’s current school leaders

becoming eligible for retirement in the next four years, policymakers have recognized a window

of opportunity and have zeroed in on improving school leadership as a crucial step toward

improving student achievement. In order to effect systemic change, NC is prepared to address

school leadership on three major fronts: Master’s of School Administration (MSA) programs

within the public university system, alternative licensure Leadership Academies, and high-

impact professional development for existing principals. Action on all three fronts is mutually

reinforcing, aligned with the newly adopted North Carolina Standards for School Executives, and

driven by a commitment to improving school leadership as a means to facilitating student

learning. This request for proposals addresses the creation and implementation of alternative

licensure Principal Leadership Academies.

Principal Leadership Academies

NC is committed to providing new and alternative pathways to school leadership. The NC

RttT/ZSR [Z. Smith Reynolds] Leadership Academies (LAs) will serve collaboratives of

partnering LEAs and directly address the need to recruit, prepare, and support leaders of

transformational change in challenging school contexts.

The first LA, the Northeast Leadership Academy (NELA), will begin during the fall of 2010 in

NC’s northeast region and will be a MSA program designed by NCSU to serve a cluster of low-

achieving rural schools. The locations of the other two RttT LAs will be determined through this

RFP process, and will be designed to prepare principals to lead low-performing and other high-need

schools. When fully operational by 2011-12, these Academies will prepare about 75 new principals

each year. These LAs will be demonstration sites that will both serve as models for additional LAs

and inform program development and improvement in other university-LEA partnerships.

The LA project is undergirded by the following beliefs about effective leaders. An effective

principal:

1. is a leader of learning in the school (all decisions and resources are aligned to the goal of

improving student outcomes);

2. develops the staff and promotes a culture of continuous, reflective professional learning;

3. cultivates distributive leadership so that authority and accountability are linked;

4. is a systems-thinker and is able to frame problems and potential problems by being a

reflective practitioner;

5. is able to identify leverage points within the system to push change efforts that improve

school outcomes;

6. understands, reads, predicts, and prevents challenges to the school climate; and

7. uses multiple forms of data to inform all decisions.


March 2014


The LAs are designed to be consistent with literature on executive development, adult learning

theory and educational leadership (e.g., Davis et al., 2005; Hale & Moorman, 2003; New Leaders

for New Schools, 2008). Therefore, aspiring principals will be led through a preparation program

(aligned to the NC Standards for School Executives) that includes the following components:

Rigorous recruitment and selection, leveraging lessons learned from the NYC Leadership

Academy, the New Leaders for New Schools programs, and other programs;

Cohort-based experiences, with aspiring school leaders participating in cohorts of 20-25

peers, to enable the development of a meaningful professional learning community. Evidence

of the advantages of cohort models is provided by Davis et al., 2005; Dorn et al., 1995; Muth

& Barnett, 2001; and other researchers;

An action-research, case-study curriculum focus, which will engage participants in

addressing issues similar to those they will face on the job, working through relevant data,

problem identification, consideration of alternative solutions, and decision-making. The

action-research projects and cases will be aligned with the NC Standards for School

Executives and will be tied to educational leadership literature and research. This instruction

will occur in an intensive summer program designed to be delivered over one or two

summers. Such summer programs may be individually or collaboratively developed or may

depend on currently available models as demonstrated by organizations such as the New

York Academy or New Leaders for New Schools.

Full-time, year-long clinical residency experience, which will engage participants in

meaningful activities under the direction of an on-site principal mentor, a Leadership

Academy supervisor, and an executive coach. As a primary component of the LA experience,

supervised clinical residencies will allow aspiring school leaders to solidify their knowledge

by applying it to authentic situations (Cordeiro & Smith-Sloan, 1995; Murphy, 1992, 2002).

Weekly full-cohort, continued learning during the residency year that will provide just-in-

time learning for immediate problems and continue to develop aspiring leaders’ skills’;

Multi-faceted support structure, involving a mentor with extensive successful school

leadership experience, an LA supervisor, and potentially, an executive coach. Although the

roles may be blended or otherwise modified according to the plan, all coaches, mentors, and

supervisors will be carefully selected and provided with initial training and ongoing support;

Job placement and induction support, with the LA working with the participating school

districts to ensure appropriate matches of aspiring leaders to the schools in which they are

placed and to continue professional development through a two-year induction period, during

which LA principals continue to engage with their cohort, mentor and coach in furthering

their leadership skills. Support may result in district changes in the manner in which

principals are supervised and may result in varying levels of individual autonomy in order for

the new leaders to be successful. It is the strong expectation that successful candidates will be

placed and serve in high-need schools.

Dynamic feedback and improvement loops, involving a systematic evaluation of programs,

coursework, mentors, supervisors, coaches and student outcomes to ensure continuous and

evidence-driven improvement.


March 2014


II. Program Eligibility Criteria

The following guidelines define the eligibility criteria for interested applicants:

A collaborative may consist of multiple districts united by proximity (geography) or a

common shared need or issue (school district size, urban, high poverty, etc.) that collectively

can demonstrate the need for enough new principals to support a leadership academy

collaborative. The size of the collaborative must be sufficient to support candidate cohort of

20-25 to maintain cost effectiveness.

A single large district may apply individually as long as it can justify a sufficient cohort size

based on need and define sustainability measures.

A Principal Leadership Academy may involve a partnership with an external partner such as

an IHE, RESA or other intermediary, but is not required to do so.

A Principal Leadership Academy may partner with an IHE to combine the licensure

development with a Masters of School Administration (MSA) program, but is not required to

do so.

Principal Leadership Academies seeking alternative licensure must obtain approval from the

North Carolina State Board of Education

III. Funds Available

Funds available through the grant will not exceed $XXX per Leadership Academy. The applicant

must demonstrate how any additional necessary funds will be supplied or raised.

IV. Overview of the Application Process

Following is a brief overview of the LA application process.

1. Getting Started

All interested applicants should first thoroughly review the information provided including:

Background information and purpose of the program

Eligibility guidelines

Required and competitive priorities

Budgetary requirements

Due dates

Application submission instructions

2. Completing and submitting your application

A complete application consists of the following components:

Part A: Application narrative

- Project Abstract

- Project Narrative

- Budget Narrative

- Appendix (as appropriate)


March 2014


Part B: Forms

- Budget summary – submitted with Budget Narrative (Form 301)

- Line item Budget form - submitted with Budget Narrative (Form 302)

- Leadership Academy Partner Profile (Form 303)

- Leadership Academy Personnel Chart (Form 304)

- Project Activities/Timeline Chart (Form 305)

- Assurances (Form 306)

- MOU, if applicable

- Support letters (optional)

SUBMISSION: Each component is discussed in detail in the following pages of this

application package. Once the application is complete, it must be submitted electronically to

_________________.

DUE: All Leadership Academy applications must be received on or before October 15, 2010.

3. Addressing your questions/Technical Assistance

Questions regarding the application should be addressed to

____________at____________.

A technical assistance session for entities who are considering applying will be offered.

Technical assistance grants for assistance in detailed program development will be

available to collaboratives that attend the technical assistance session and submit a

Leadership Academy proposal.

A. Application Narrative Instructions:

Project Abstract Narrative

Project Narrative

Budget Narrative (includes line item budget form)

Appendix

1. Project Abstract Narrative is where you attach your one-two page project abstract

including:

a. Project Title, if applicable

b. Partners in the submitting collaborative or title of single LEA applicant, including

official contact for any application

c. Brief statement of need (number of high-need schools, low income students, expected

principal vacancies or difficulty in recruiting qualified candidates)

d. Brief description including project components and activities

e. Summary of project objectives and expected outcomes

f. Target number of potential principal candidates to be served

g. Target number of students potentially impacted

h. Any special project features

i. Commitment to participating in program evaluation and ongoing improvement of the

program


March 2014


2. Project Narrative should include, in detail, the eligible applicant’s response to the

Required and Competitive priorities. Eligible applicants should address each of the

Required and Competitive priorities as appropriate since the application will be evaluated

and scored against these criteria.

Required and Competitive Priorities

a. Evidence supporting need for project

b. Demonstration of partner buy-in including resources obtained from other sources

(including in-kind support and additional outside technical support)

c. Evidence of collaborative capacity to plan and implement project proposal

including demonstrated support of local boards of education and county

commissioners.

d. Commitment to and plan for project sustainability beyond funding period

e. Comprehensive program including all research-based defined program elements

listed on pages 3-4 above.

f. Evidence of knowledge and skill in the area of adult learning

g. Clear scope of work with program definition, activities, timelines and deliverables

as well as defined LA personnel roles/responsibilities

h. Demonstration of best practice in teaching and learning as evidenced by problem-

based teaching and learning in project design.

Formatting

- A “page” is 8.5” x 11”, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and

both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be within the 1” margin. Double

space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application

narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, captions, as

well as all text in charts, tables, and graphs. Use a font that is 12-point or larger.

Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or

Arial. Other fonts submitted will not be accepted.

Page Limits

- Eligible applicants are strongly encouraged to limit the project narrative to twenty

pages.

3. Budget Narrative includes the Budget Summary form (Form 301) and the detailed line

item budget form (Form 302) AND the accompanying detailed budget narrative

justification. Funds should be budgeted for the course of the grant. Eligible applicants

must also provide a detailed budget narrative that describes their proposed multiyear

project activities and the costs associated with those activities as well as all costs

associated with carrying out the proposed project. The budget should include only costs

that are allowable, reasonable, and necessary for the carrying out the objectives of the LA

project. In addition to the grant budget, the narrative should describe sources of funding

to be used in addition to the grant funds.


March 2014


4. Appendix. Eligible applicants are encouraged to follow guidelines below in attaching

Appendices to the project proposal

Appendix A: Leadership Academy Profile document for each proposed collaborative

(Form 303)

Appendix B: Resumes of Key Personnel in each partner organization

Appendix C: Leadership Academy Personnel Chart (Form 304)

Appendix D: Letters of Support, optional

Appendix E: MOU, if applicable

Appendix F: Assurances (Form 306)

Appendix G: Other, if applicable

Application Narratives:

1. Project Abstract Narrative – see earlier guidelines

2. Project Narrative

Address the Eight Required and Competitive Priorities in your Project Narrative as

described above, page 6.

In addition, in your narrative, respond to the questions/directions listed below:

2a. Describe the evidence that supports your need for this collaborative. What need are you

trying to fill? What is the rationale behind your collaborative? If you are a single district, what is

your justification for establishing a leadership academy as a single district? Include district data

in your argument (number of principals, turnover, etc.)

2b. Readiness is considered as a measure of the partners’ individual track records; buy-in as an

actual statement of willingness to commit to the project (as evidenced by the support of district

and collaborative contributions in human, fiscal and time resources); and capacity as evidence of

the districts’/collaborative’s ability to both plan and implement the plan, With those definitions

in mind, describe evidence of your readiness, buy-in and capacity as it relates to this project.

2c. How will you use Technical Assistance in your planning and implementation process?

2d. Describe your collaborative’s governance structure.

2e. How will you sustain this project after the grant funding ends?

2f. How do you define this project’s success? What will your on-going evaluation process look

like? What data will you collect and how will you use it for continuous improvement?

2g. If seeking alternative licensure authority, demonstrate a clear pathway to licensure, to be

granted by the NC State Board of Education: addressing all required program components and a

detailed narrative on how you will address the seven administrator standards and twenty-one

competencies. Inclusion of a chart reflecting a ‘standards crosswalk’ showing how each standard

and dispensation will be addressed is encouraged. Additionally, describe how the different


March 2014


program elements are aligned and coordinated. Required program components (see earlier

descriptions) include:

Rigorous recruitment and selection

Cohort-based experiences

An action-research, case-study curriculum focus delivered in an intensive summer

program designed for one or two summers

Full-time, year-long clinical residency experience including the recruitment, training

and supervision of candidate mentors and coaches.

Weekly full-cohort, continued learning during the residency year

Multi-faceted support structure

Job placement and induction support

Dynamic feedback and improvement loops

3. Budget Narrative/Summary Budget (Form 301) and Line Item Budget (Form 302). Budget Narrative includes the Budget summary form, detailed line item budget form AND

the accompanying detailed budget narrative justification. Funds should be budgeted for the

course of the grant.


March 2014


Appendix B. Regional Leadership Academies Biannual Participant Survey


March 2014



March 2014


Appendix C. RLA Evaluators’ Observation Log

Date Time Place Purpose

Monday

March 21, 2011

11:30–

1:00 Abernathy

Attend meeting to discuss RLA with

Gary, Trip, and Adam—KB & AH

Monday

April 4, 2011

10:00–

2:00 CSLD

Attend meeting to discuss SOW with

Gary, Trip, and Laura—KB & AH

Monday

May 2, 2011 9:00–1:00 CSLD

Attend meeting with Executive Directors

of RLAs and Janice Davis

Saturday

April 30, 2011 8:00–3:00 Friday Institute Observe NELA selection process—KB

Thursday-Friday

May 5–6, 2011 9:00–3:00 Atlanta

Attend SREB Conference on Leadership

Academies—KB

Wednesday

May 11, 2011

11:00–

4:00

Longleaf

Southern Pines

Observe SLA curriculum development

with NYCLA reps—KB

Monday

May 16, 2011

4:00–

10:00

Fayetteville

ERC Observe SLA selection process—KB

Thursday

May 19, 2011

7:30–

12:30 UNCG

Observe PTLA Advisory Group

meeting—KB

Saturday

May 21, 2011

9:00–

12:00

Fayetteville

ERC Observe SLA selection process—AH

Monday

May 23, 2011

8:00–

Noon DPI

Present to June Atkinson’s cabinet

meeting (NCDPI)—KB

Wednesday

May 25, 2011

Noon–

5:00 SERVE

Attend/present on Fall RttT data

collection—KB & AH

Tuesday

May 31, 2011

11:30–

4:30 Friday Institute

Present to Quality Assurance

Committee—KB & AH

Wednesday

June 2, 2011

7:30–

12:30 UNCG


meeting—KB

Thursday

June 16, 2011 3:00–5:00 UNCG


meeting—AH

Thursday

June 23, 2011 2:00–8:00

Longleaf

Southern Pines

Observe SLA kick-off program and

information meeting—KB

Wednesday

July 6, 2011 8:00–2:30

UNCG

Piney Lake

Observe PTLA kick-off activities: Ropes

Course (Team Quest)—KB

Thursday

July 7, 2011 8:30–4:00 UNCG

Observe PTLA kick-off activities: Q&A,

Ropes Course follow-ups—AH

Wednesday

July 13, 2011

11:30–

4:30 UNCG

Observe PTLA Summer Ramp Up:

School Leadership Seminar—KB

Wednesday

July 20, 2011 8:30–4:00

NCCAT

Cullowhee Observe SLA Summer Institute—AH

Thursday

July 21, 2011 8:30–4:30 UNCG


School Leadership Seminar—AH

Tuesday

July 26, 2011

7:30–

12:30 UNCG


School Leadership Seminar—KB


March 2014



Tuesday

July 26, 2011

12:30–

5:00

Sandhills Com

College Observe SLA Summer Institute—KB

Wednesday

July 27, 2011

12:00–

9:00 Friday Institute

Attend/present RttT SOW impact

meeting—KB

Tuesday

August 2, 2011 9:00–3:00

Sandhills Com

College Observe SLA Summer Institute—AH

Friday

August 5, 2011 9:00–3:00 Raleigh

Observe NELA Mentor Principal and

Coach Training—AH

Monday

August 8, 2011 7:30–3:00 Friday Institute

Observe NELA Cohort II Orientation—

KB

Tuesday

August 9, 2011

9:00–

11:00 UNCG

Observe PTLA Advisory Team

meeting—AH

Wednesday

August 10, 2011 9:00–3:00

Pinckney Ac,

Carthage, NC

Observe SLA Mentor Principal

Training—KB

Thursday

August 18, 2011 8:30–3:30

UNCG

Room 401

Observe First Fall Session PTLA

Internship Seminar—AH

Friday

August 26, 2011 9:00–3:00 UNCG

Observe PTLA Curriculum Writing

Session (9-11)—KB & AH (RLA

planning session)

Tuesday

August 30, 2011 4:30–9:30

Friday

Institute

Present to Quality Assurance Committee

(QAC)—KB & AH

Tuesday

September 6, 2011 8:30–5:30

Rocky Mount,

NC

Observe NELA Distinguished Leaders in

Practice—KB

Monday

September 19, 2011

8:30–

11:00

Hunt Institute,

Durham

Attend/present RLA Quality Assurance

Committee (QAC) meeting—KB

Wednesday

September 21, 2011 8:00–5:00

Pinckney

Academy, NC

Observe SLA Intern Seminar: Guest

Speaker Richard Schwartz—KB

Thursday

September 22, 2011

Noon–

5:00

Triad Center

Greensboro

Observe PTLA Intern Seminar: EDUC

690—KB

Tuesday

October 11, 2011 8:00–6:00

Rocky Mount,

NC

Observe NELA Formative Assessments

of Fellows—KB

Wednesday

October 12, 2011 8:00–5:00

Pinckney

Academy, NC

Observe SLA: DPI Principal Evaluation

Trainers—KB

Thursday

October 13, 2011 8:00–4:00

Graham

Middle, ABSS

Observe PTLA School Site Visit #4—

KB

TOTAL = 32 formal observations plus 10

formal meetings attended or presented to

between November 2011 and October

2012

Tuesday

November 1, 2011 8:00–6:00

McKimmon

Center, NC

State, Raleigh

Attend/present RLA Quality Assurance

Committee (QAC)—KB & AH

Friday

November 4, 2011

11:00–

4:00

NCDPI,

Raleigh Attend/present RttT meeting—KB


March 2014



Friday

November 18, 2011 1:00–4:00 Pittsburgh, PA

Attend/present UCEA Conference

presentation regarding NC RLAs—KB

Thursday

December 15, 2011

8:00–

12:30

Kiser Middle

School,

Greensboro

Observe PTLA school site visit to Kiser

Middle School—AH

Friday

December 16, 2011

9:00–

12:30

Richmond

County,

Hamlet, NC

Observe SLA Intern Seminar: Switch

month info and gathering data—AH

December 20, 2011 1:30-5:00 Chapel Hill

Present Regional Leadership Academies

Cost-Effectiveness Framework Report—

KB & AH

Monday

January 9, 2012

12:30–

4:30

Moore County

District Office

Observe SLA Advisory Board meeting—

KB

Wednesday

January 18, 2012

9:00–

12:00 UNCG SOE

Observe PTLA Advisory Board

meeting—KB

Monday

January 30, 2012 8:45–1:30

Friday

Institute,

Raleigh, NC

Observe NELA Intern Seminar regarding

leadership and technology—KB

Monday

February 6, 2012 9:30–1:00

NC DPI

Raleigh

Present NCDPI presentation (RLA

CEA)—KB

Thursday

February 16, 2012

12:00–

5:00

Greensboro,

NC

Observe PTLA site visit at Hunter

Elementary—KB

Friday

February 17, 2012 8:00–1:00

Rocky Mount,

NC

Observe NELA Intern Session regarding

Facilitative Leadership—KB

Wednesday

February 22, 2012 8:00–1:00 Sanford, NC

Observe SLA site visit to JR Ingram

Elementary School—KB

Tuesday

February 28, 2012

12:30–

5:00 Durham, NC

Attend/present at QAC meeting at Hunt

Institute—KB

Thursday

March 8, 2012

12:00–

5:00

Greensboro,

NC

Observe PTLA intern session with

Superintendents—KB

Tuesday

March 13, 2012

5:00–

10:00 Sanford, NC

Observe SLA School Board presentation

at Lee County High School—KB

Friday

March 23, 2012 8:00–1:00 Raleigh, NC Observe NELA intern session—KB

Wednesday

April 25, 2012

8:00–

12:00 Moore County

Observe SLA intern session at Pickney

Academy (interviewing and resumes)—

KB

Thursday

April 26, 2012

Noon–

5:00

Alamance

County

Observe PTLA site visit to Haw River

Elementary School—KB

Monday

April 30, 2012 9:00–1:00

NC DPI

Raleigh Present to NCDPI—KB

Wednesday

May 2, 2012 8:00–2:00

Rocky Mount,

NC

Observe NELA intern session at

Gateway Technology—KB

June 24–29, 2012 9:00–5:00 Ocracoke

Island, NC

Observe SLA’s Week 5 of intensive

prep—KB


March 2014



Tuesday

July 10, 2012

11:00–

1:00

CSLD, Chapel

Hill

Attend/present meeting with NC BOE

Rep Steve Jackson and NCDPI (Lynne

Johnson? Freda Lee?)—KB

Thursday

July 12, 2012 8:00–1:00

UNCG – SOE

Greensboro

Observe PTLA Cohort II Seminar on

School Turnaround—KB

Thursday

July 26, 2012 9:00–2:00

CSLD, Chapel

Hill

Attend/present RttT team meeting

(provide updates on RLAs and DST)—

KB

Thursday

August 2, 2012 8:00–2:00

Moore County

District Office

Observe SLA Cohort II Mentor Training

Session I—KB

Wednesday

August 29, 2012 8:00–1:00

Greensboro,

NC

Observe PTLA Cohort II Seminar on

Challenges—KB

Thursday

September 13, 2012 2:00–8:00

Rocky Mount,

NC

Observe NELA Cohort I Support

Seminar—KB

Thursday

September 20, 2012

11:30–

4:30

Pinckney

Academy,

Carthage, NC

Observe SLA Cohort II Seminar on

Legal Issues and Legislative Policy

Updates—KB

Wednesday

October 3, 2012 7:30–1:30

Hairston

Middle,

Greensboro,

NC

Observe PTLA Cohort II site visit on

Learning Walks and Nine Best

Practices—KB

Monday

October 8, 2012

8:00–

12:00

Friday

Institute,

Raleigh, NC

Observe NELA Cohort III

Understanding By Design Training—KB

Monday

October 8, 2012 2:30–3:30

Chapel Hill,

NC

Attend/present phone conference with

RLAs and QAC to discuss combined

RLA event on November 28th

Thursday

October 18, 2012 2:30–7:30

Pinckney

Academy,

Carthage, NC

Observe SLA Cohort I Support

Seminar—KB



between March 2011 and October 2013

Friday

November 2, 2012 8:00–2:00

Friday

Institute,

Raleigh, NC

Observe NELA Cohort III Digital Story

Telling Workshop—KB

Wednesday

November 7, 2012 8:00–1:00

Eastlawn

Elementary,

Burlington

Observe PTLA Cohort II school site

visit—KB

Thursday

November 8, 2012

11:30–

4:30

Pinckney

Academy,

Carthage, NC

Observe SLA Cohort II Seminar—KB

Saturday

November 17, 2012

12:00–

4:00 Denver, CO Present at the UCEA Conference—KB


March 2014



Wednesday

November 28, 2012 1:00–8:00

Friday

Institute,

Raleigh, NC

Observe combined RLA event—KB

Tuesday

January 8, 2013 8:00-3:00

Carolina,

Pinehurst, NC Present at NC Legislative Retreat – KB

Wednesday

January 16, 2013

11:30-

4:30

Southern

Middle,

Greensboro

Observe PTLA Cohort II Site Visit to

Southern Guilford Middle School – KB

Monday

January 28, 2013

12:00-

3:00

NC DPI,

Raleigh, NC Present RLA Year I Report to DPI – KB

Tuesday

February 5, 2013

12:00-

4:00

Friday

Institute,

Raleigh, NC

Observe NELA Cohort III Seminar – KB

Thursday

February 7, 2013

12:00-

4:00

Pinckney

Academy,

Carthage, NC

Observe SLA Cohort II Seminar – KB

Friday

March 1, 2013 8:00-1:00

UNCG,

Greensboro Observe PTLA Advisory Meeting – KB

Wednesday

March 6, 2013 9:00-2:00

SBE,

Raleigh, NC Present RLA Year 1 Report to SBE – KB

Thursday

March 14, 2013 2:00-7:00

Pinckney

Academy,

Carthage, NC

Observe SLA Cohort 1 Support Meeting

– KB

Tuesday

March 19, 2013

8:00-

11:00

Friday

Institute,

Raleigh, NC

Observe NELA Cohort II – KB

Tuesday

April 16, 2013

12:00-

5:00

Friday

Institute,

Raleigh, NC

Observe NELA Cohort III – KB

Wednesday

April 17, 2013 8:00-1:00

Williams High

School,

Burlington

Observe PTLA Cohort II Site Visit – KB

Friday

April 19, 2013 8:00-1:00

District Office,

Lillington, NC

Observe SLA Cohort I and II

Storytelling – KB

Wednesday

May 8, 2013 9:00-1:00

Gateway Tech

Rocky Mount Observe NELA Cohort II Diversity – KB

Thursday

May 23, 2013 1:00-5:00

Pinckney

Academy,

Carthage, NC

Observe SLA Cohort II Diversity and

Judge Manning – KB

Tuesday

June 18, 2013

11:00-

3:00 Burlington, NC

Attend/present at Sustainability/Grant

meeting with PTLA – KB

Wednesday

July 17, 2013 9:00-1:00

UNCG,

Greensboro Observe PTLA Cohort III – KB


March 2014



Thursday

July 18, 2013 9:00-1:00

Pinckney

Academy,

Carthage, NC

Observe SLA Cohort III – KB

Wednesday

July 31, 2013

10:00-

2:00

Gateway

Technology

Center, Rocky

Mount, NC


Thursday

September 5, 2013

11:00-

4:00

Friday

Institute,

Raleigh, NC

Present RLA info at RttT Evaluation

Meeting – KB

Tuesday

September 10, 2013

11:00-

5:00

Gateway

Technology

Center, Rocky

Mount, NC


Thursday

September 12, 2013 Noon-4:00

Pinckney

Academy,

Carthage, NC


Wednesday

September 25, 2013 Noon-5:00

Hunter

Elementary,

Greensboro

Observe PTLA Cohort III Site Visit –

KB

Tuesday

October 1, 2013 Noon-4:00

Garner Middle,

Raleigh

Observe NELA Cohort III Site Visit –

KB

Wednesday

October 16, 2013 9:00-1:00

UNCG,

Greensboro Observe PTLA Cohort III – KB

Thursday

October 31, 2013 Noon-4:00

Pinckney

Academy,

Carthage, NC




between November 2012 and October

2013

GRAND

TOTAL

86 formal observations plus

26 formal meetings attended or

presented to between March 2011 and

October 2013


March 2014


Appendix D. Regional Leadership Academies Scope of Work and Logic Map of Initiative

Overview

The evaluation of the Race to the Top Regional Leadership Academies (RLA) initiative will

gauge the success of the RLAs in the following areas:

Recruiting, selecting, and training school leaders;

Program participants’ placement within high poverty and low-performing NC schools; and

Relative cost-effectiveness of RLAs as compared to alternative programs.

The evaluation approach will combine qualitative analyses (including document reviews,

observations, interviews, and focus groups) with an analysis of participant survey data,

administrative data, accounting data, and school leadership movement data. Overriding goals of

the evaluation will be to determine whether the RLAs are successful in fulfilling North

Carolina’s school leadership needs and, if so, whether they have met these needs in a fashion that

is cost-effective and deserving of continued financial support.

RttT Initiative Context

Policy Objective(s)/Purpose(s) of the Initiative

● Increase the number of principals qualified to lead transformational change in low-

performing schools in both rural and urban areas.

Initiative Activities

Leadership academy and LEA leaders work together to identify and recruit selective and

committed candidates.

Curriculum employs an action-research, case-study focus, which engages participants in

addressing issues similar to those they will face on the job and which is aligned with the NC

Standards for School Executives.

Workshops and seminars are co-led by teams of university faculty, exemplary LEA

leadership practitioners, and others with extensive school leadership experience.

Aspiring school leaders participate in cohorts of 20 to 25 peers, to enable the development of

a meaningful professional learning community.

The RLA experience for candidates will include:

○ Site visits to high-performing, high-poverty schools, with student populations similar to

those in which the participants will be placed;

○ Full-time, year-long, clinical residency experience, during their second year in the

program, under the direction of an on-site principal mentor, a leadership academy

supervisor, and an executive coach;

○ Weekly full-cohort, continued learning during the residency year that will provide just-in-

time learning for immediate problems and ongoing skill development;


March 2014


○ Coordination with the NCDPI District and School Transformation Initiative, to ensure

consistency and coordination when working in the same districts and schools;

○ Job placement support, provided by the leadership academy in conjunction with

participating LEAs to ensure appropriate matches of aspiring leaders to the schools in

which they are placed;

○ Induction support, involving ongoing professional development through a two-year

induction period after the participant assumes a school leadership role, during which

leadership academy principals will continue to engage with their cohort, coaches,

mentors, and supervisors in furthering their leadership skills; and

○ Incentives for participants, including tuition toward a Master’s degree in School

Administration, release time to participate, hiring preference with the participating LEAs,

travel costs for site visits, early career support, and program materials.

Evaluation Goal(s)/Purpose(s) of the Evaluation

● Determine whether RLA implementation has increased the number of principals prepared

to lead transformational change in high-need schools.

● Discern the cost-effectiveness of RLA efforts to recruit and train these principals

Overall Approach to Evaluation

Mixed-method: Collection and analysis of qualitative and quantitative data will be integrated to

address evaluation questions. A case study model will be used to better understand RLA design,

implementation, and possible impacts.


March 2014



March 2014


Research Questions and Anticipated Data Sources

Document/

Course

Review

Educator

Eval Tool

Results

Observations (Classroom/

Institute/

Workshop/

Other)

Interviews (Teacher/

Admin/

Other)

Focus

Groups (Student/

Teacher/

Other)

Surveys (Student/

Teacher/

Other) Quant

Analysis

Administra-

tive Data

Review

Accounting

Data Review Projected/Proposed Analysis Tool

Evaluation Question

Major/Overall Questions

What is the nature and quality of the experience: a) for students and b) for

participating teachers? X X X

Are these initiatives cost-effective and sustainable?

X

To what extent do the initiatives meet critical needs for teachers and principals and improve equitable access to higher-quality teachers and

leaders in targeted geographic and content areas?

X

Specific Questions

Do RLAs effectively recruit, relative to the alternatives?

Measures: candidate acceptance rates, program completion rates, multi-

step selection process implementation, candidate cohort characteristics, candidate and RLA planning group process-related feedback

X X

Do RLAs effectively train, relative to the alternatives?

Measures: fidelity of implementation of research-based training

methodologies, curriculum analysis, candidate and candidate mentor, coach, and supervisor feedback

X

X X X

X

What impact does each RLA’s selection criteria have on program

effectiveness?

Measures: candidate, mentor, and candidate supervisor feedback relative to

the purpose of the RLAs

X

X X X

Do RLA graduates find placements in targeted schools/districts?

X

X

X

Are RLAs cost-effective relative to the alternatives?

X


March 2014


Evaluation Activities

NorthEast Leadership Academy (NELA) is based at North Carolina State University and serves

the following school districts: Edgecombe, Franklin, Granville, Martin, Nash-Rocky Mount,

Vance, and Washington. NELA will select and induct its second cohort in the summer of 2011.

Cohort 1 was inducted prior to NC RttT funding in the summer of 2010. Successful NELA

matriculates will be granted Licensure and a Masters of School Administration.

Piedmont Triad Leadership Academy (PTLA) is based at The University of North Carolina at

Greensboro and serves the Piedmont Triad Education Consortium and the following school

districts: Alamance-Burlington, Asheboro City, Guilford, and Winston-Salem/Forsyth. PTLA

selected and will induct its first cohort in the summer of 2011. Successful PTLA matriculates

will be granted Licensure.

Sandhills Leadership Academy (SLA) was founded by the Sandhills Regional Education

Consortium and serves the following school districts: Anson, Columbus, Cumberland, Harnett,

Hoke, Lee, Montgomery, Moore, Richmond, Robeson, Scotland, and Whiteville. Fayetteville

State University, The University of North Carolina at Pembroke, and the North Carolina Center

for the Advancement of Teaching are partners to the SLA. SLA will select and induct its first

cohort in the summer of 2011. Successful SLC matriculates will be granted Licensure.

Each RLA is a unique program created independently to meet the school leadership needs of

three distinct regions of North Carolina. As each program followed its own path to

implementation and its own timeline, evaluators have been engaged and involved as observers

collecting and analyzing data since April, 2011.

Anticipated Procedure:

Analyze:

o Evaluators will analyze each RLA’s recruitment efforts, curriculum, induction, and RLA

internal evaluation efforts. Artifacts (planning documents, presentations, dissemination

materials, websites, etc.) and observational data will be analyzed using relevant

qualitative methodologies and computer software when appropriate. These activities will

help evaluators understand how candidates are recruited, inducted, and trained.

o As noted above, the evaluation team will use a mixture of document-review,

observations, interviews, focus groups, survey, administrative data, and accounting data.

Creswell’s (2009)12

mixed-methods approach is most appropriate given multiple data

collection methods and mixed modes of analysis.

Observe:

o Evaluators will observe each RLA’s selection processes and candidate cohort

experiences, including internships and support efforts. These activities will help

evaluators understand the support and guidance provided to candidates.

12

Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.


March 2014


Interview:

o Evaluators will interview each RLA’s Director, participants, mentors, coaches, and

participant supervisors. These activities will help evaluators gather a wide range of

perspectives on the RLAs for qualitative analysis.

Analyze:

o Evaluators will analyze the cost-effectiveness of the RLAs relative to extant comparable

leadership development programs using Levin and McEwan’s (2001)13

‘ingredients-

based’ approach to cost-effectiveness analysis. This analysis will provide a basis for

value comparisons between RLAs and other models.

Anticipated Schedule:

● First stage (January 2011-July 2011):

○ During the first stage of the RLA evaluation, the evaluation team will visit each RLA

(n=3) to gather observational data and artifacts for review from: Executive RLA

Networking meetings, Quality Assurance Group meetings, each RLA’s curriculum and

planning meetings, and each RLA’s cohort candidate selection activities. Throughout

these activities the evaluation team will meet to discuss emerging themes, plan for future

analyses, and plan site visits and interviews to flexibly coincide with each RLA’s

developing calendar. Initial cost effectiveness analyses on extant comparable leadership

development programs will be performed and protocols for field observations and

interviews will be developed.

● Second stage (August 2011-June 2013)

○ Second stage evaluation activities will include continued visits to the RLAs to collect

observational data and artifacts for review during: kickoff activities, summer institutes

and training programs, mentor principal training sessions, and residencies and

internships. Additionally, interviews will be conducted with: RLA Directors, participants,

mentors, coaches, and participant supervisors. During this period, the second RttT-funded

cohort of candidates will be recruited, selected, and trained; evaluation activities will

include this second RttT cohort as well.

● Third stage (July 2013-June 2014)

o The third and final stage of the evaluation activities will focus on final data collection,

analyses and synthesis of findings, and report authoring. Data from observations,

artifact/document review, and interviews will be analyzed using themes based on evaluation

questions and those that emerge throughout evaluation and program activities. The cost-

effectiveness analysis will also be finalized during this stage. All evaluation activities result

in the authoring of the final RLA Evaluation Report to be delivered June, 2014.

Major Evaluation Deliverables

Final 2012 Activity Report 11/30/2012

Final 2013 Activity Report 11/30/2013

Final Report 4/30/2014

13

Levin, H. M., and P. J. McEwan. (2001). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Application, 2nd ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


March 2014


Appendix E. Cohort 1, Cohort 2, and Cohort 3 RLA Participants and Internship

Placement Schools

Table E1. NELA Cohort 1 Internship Placements

Name Internship Placement LEA Mentor Principal

Mark Barfield Northampton High Northampton Pamela Chamblee

Annabel Bello Belmont Elementary Roanoke Rapids Kelvin Edwards

Melissa Harris-Rich Roanoke Rapids High Roanoke Rapids Robert Hurley

Ryan Hurley Mariam Boyd Elem Warren Canecca Davis

Demetra Lassiter Ahoskie Elementary Hertford Stan Warren

Mark Long Hertford High Hertford Greg Hogue

Douglas Miller Hollister Elementary Halifax Carla Amason

Carol Mizelle Bertie Middle Bertie Sandra Hardy

Sean Murphy South Johnston High Johnston Eddie Price

Tracey Neal South Warren Elem Warren Tony Cozart

Erin Swanson AB Combs Magnet Elem Wake Muriel T. Summers

Gonzalo Pitpit Bertie Middle School Bertie Sandra Hardy

Kim Scott Bearfield Primary Hertford Julie Shields

Ebony Spivey Jason Mariam Boyd Elem Warren Canecca Davis

Mae Rose Riverview Elementary Hertford Lori Morings

Erica Staine Shoulders Long Mill Elementary Franklin Kim Ferrell

Hope Walker Belmont Elementary Roanoke Rapids Kelvin Edwards

Yolanda Wiggins Hollister Elementary Halifax Carla D. Amason

Cecilya Williams Chaloner Middle Roanoke Rapids Thomas Davis

Christina Williams Central Elementary Northampton Catina Hoggard

Shelley Williams Hollister Elementary Halifax Carla D. Amason


March 2014


Table E2. PTLA Cohort 1 Internship Placements


Jamyle Acevedo Page High Guilford Marilyn Foley

Adrea Alexander Hunter Elementary Guilford Michelle Thompson

Michelle Breen Forest Park Elem Winston-Salem/Forsyth Constance Hash

Thomas Brookshire Atkins High Winston-Salem/Forsyth Joseph Childers

Jason Todd Cayton Wiley Elementary Guilford Dr. Shelia Gorham

Ronnie Christian Northwest Middle Winston-Salem/Forsyth Sharon Richardson

Amy Day Kiser Middle Guilford Sharon McCants

Melvin Diggs Graham Middle Alamance-Burlington Teresa Faucette

Cassandra Dobson Diggs-Latham Elem Winston-Salem/Forsyth Donna Cannon

Scarlet Evans North Hills Elem Winston-Salem/Forsyth Karen Morning-Cain

Keisha Gabriel Parkland High Winston-Salem/Forsyth Dr. Tim Lee

Shadonna Gunn Haw River Elem Alamance-Burlington Julie Jailall

Jusmar Maness Southern Middle Guilford Kevin Wheat

Charnelle Newkirk Oak Hill Elementary Guilford Patrice Faison

Ian Olsen Hill Magnet Middle Winston-Salem/Forsyth Ingrid Medlock

Stephanie Rakes Foust Elementary Guilford Merrie Conaway

Chameeka Smith Asheboro High Asheboro City Kemper Fitch

Ashley Triplett Vandalia Elementary Guilford Keisha McMillan

Weaver Walden Johnson St Global Guilford Trent Vernon

Cynthia White Jones Elementary Guilford Dr. Jake Henry

Hollis Wroblewski Grove Park Elem Alamance-Burlington Jennifer Reed


March 2014


Table E3. SLA Cohort 1 Internship Placements


Angela D. Wright Harnett Primary Harnett Sabrina Hendley

Robert Forrest Breyer North Harnett Primary Harnett Monica Thompson

Dante Pool Robbins Elementary Moore Heather Seawell

Jennifer C. Purvis Union Pines High Moore Robin Lea

Maresa Dutton Phillips Anson High Anson Charles Murphy

Lawrence Leroy Smalls II Spring Lake Middle Cumberland Thomas Benson

Lamonica Tillery Elizabeth Cashwell Elem Cumberland Kim Robertson

Evan L. Roush Luscille Souders Elem Cumberland Tammy Holland

Adam Michael Mowery Margaret Willis Elem Cumberland Peggy Raymes

Amy Lynn Parsons East Montgomery High Montgomery Donna Kennedy

David Renninger Sandy Grove Elementary Hoke Tonya Caulder

Shelly F. Cullipher E. Columbus High Whiteville City Mark Bridgers

Dianna W. Bellamy Tabor City Elementary Columbus Wendell Duncan

Camilla Price House Southern Lee High Lee Bonnie Almond

Penny McNeill-Lind J. R. Ingram Elementary Lee Gary Moore

Elizabeth Faulk Bridges SanLee Middle Lee Kenna Wilson

Cynthia Ann Lewis South Robeson High Robeson Larry Brooks

Tara Dee Bullard Pembroke Elementary Robeson Tona Jacobs

Joyce Morgan McRae East Rockingham Elem Richmond Keith McKenzie

Barbara Denise Adams Pate Gardner Elementary Scotland Melody Snead


March 2014




Amy Pearce Stocks Elementary Edgecombe Stephanie Alston

Vernedette Garland Winstead Avenue Elementary Nash/Rocky Mount Ella Batts

Kelly Shelton Mudd Southern Nash Middle Nash/Rocky Mount Carina Bryant

Tonya Little Riverside Middle Martin Ron Byrd

Kendrick Alston Coopers Elementary Nash/Rocky Mount Larry Catalano

Hugh Scott Southern Nash High Nash/Rocky Mount Mark Cockrell

Teicher Patterson Rocky Mount Senior High Halifax Leon Farrow

Lisa Pennington Long Mill Elementary Franklin Kim Ferrell

Jackson Olsen Zeb Vance Elementary Vance Anne Garrison

Kim Allison Wilton Elementary Granville Lauren Allen

Jennifer Lewis Baskerville Elementary Nash/Rocky Mount Ann Mitchell

Krista Fasioli Parker Middle Nash/Rocky Mount Anthony

Nottingham

Tim Mudd DS Johnson Elementary Nash/Rocky Mount Michelle Royster

Jennifer Berry Nashville Elementary Nash/Rocky Mount Margaret Sharpe

Zachary Marks Bailey Elementary Nash/Rocky Mount Amy Thornton

Erin Robbins JF Webb High Granville Calvin Timberlake

Angela Strother South Edgecombe Middle Edgecombe Michael Turner

Larry Hodgkins South Creek Middle Martin Jan Wagner

Darren Gemzik SouthWest Edgecombe High Edgecombe Marc Whichard

Elizabeth Payne Moran West Oxford Elementary Granville Melody Wilson

Lauren Greenhill Belmont Elementary Northampton Kevin Edwards


March 2014




Kristen Gravely Williams High Alamance-Burlington Joe Ferrell

Thomas Kazimir Graham High Alamance-Burlington Charlotte Holmes

Dana Roseboro Eastlawn Elem Alamance-Burlington Whitney Oakley

Ben Cawley Montlieu Academy of

Technology Elem Guilford Gerald O’Donnell

Kevin Conaway Hairston Middle Guilford Rydell Harrison

Vernon Hall Ferndale Middle Guilford Angela Jackson

Darrell Harris Eastern Middle Guilford Sarah Matthews

Noel Keener Jones Elementary Guilford Dr. Jake Henry

Greta Martin Northeast Middle Guilford Karen Williams

Janiese McKenzie Mendenhall Middle Guilford Marshall Matson

Rashad Slade Johnson Street Guilford Trent Vernon

Chelsea Smith Ragsdale H Guilford Dr. Kathy Rogers

Toks Wall Southern Middle Guilford Kevin Wheat

Kimberly Ashby North Forsyth H Winston-Salem/Forsyth Rodney Bass

Kathy Bryant Konnoak E Winston-Salem/Forsyth Sheila Burnette

Johnathan Hegedus Griffith E Winston-Salem/Forsyth Debbie Hampton

Larnitha Hunter Ibraham E Winston-Salem/Forsyth Lee Koch

Nicole Kurtz Paisley Middle Winston-Salem/Forsyth Gary Cone

Susan Miller Middle Fork E Winston-Salem/Forsyth Donald Hampton

Colin Tribby Wiley Middle Winston-Salem/Forsyth Sean Galliard


March 2014




Elizabeth Cole Bladenboro Primary Bladen Deborah Guyton

Melissa Brewer B.T. Bullock Elementary Lee Pam Sutton

Lisa Hain J.R. Ingram Elementary Lee Gary Moore

Andrew Keller Southern Lee High Lee Bonnie Almond

Christy Bur-Sharpe SanLee Middle Lee Kenna Wilson

Matt Moore West Pine Middle Moore Candace Turk

Tracy Metcalf Elise Middle Moore Brenda Cassady

Katrina Fox Southern Pine Elementary Moore Marcy Cooper

Kelly Bullard Tabor City Elementary Columbus Wendell Duncan

Leslie Bailey West Hoke Middle Hoke Mary McCleod

Jennifer Spivey North Harnett Primary Harnett Monica Thompson

Pam Lewis Scotland High Scotland Beth Ammons

Matt McClean Elizabeth Cashwell Elem Cumberland Kim Robertson

Kisha Timber-Derr South View Middle Cumberland Terrence McAllister

Mike Picciano Doug Byrd High Cumberland Dan Krumanocker

Kristy West St. Pauls Elementary Robeson Robert Locklear

Anthony Barton Purnell Swett High Robeson Antonion Wilkins

Maxine Brown Rockingham Middle Richmond Pam Patterson

Jennifer Brach West Rockingham Elem Richmond Willette Surgeon

Joy Starlin Richmond Senior High Richmond Cory Satterfield


March 2014




Joey Briggs Roanoke Rapids High Roanoke Rapids Tammie Williams

Matt Smith SW Edgecombe High Egdecombe Marc Whichard

Tawanda Smallwood Bertie High Bertie Rickey Eley

Stephanie Cottle Bertie Middle Bertie William Peele

Chad Geary Chaloner Middle Roanoke Rapids Thomas Davis

Viola Gilbert Roanoke Valley Early

College Weldon City Chris Butler

Nafeesha Irby G.C. Hawley Middle Granville Frank Wiggins

Sophelia McMannen Wilton Elementary Granville Lauren Allen

Cindy Miller-Walker Youngsville Elementary Franklin Rick Smith

Michelle Mobley East End Elementary Martin Norris Parker

Allie Pearson Hertford Middle Hertford Vatara C. Slade

Karyn Pleasant Southeast Halifax High Halifax Martha Davis

Lauren Prudenti Tarboro High Egdecombe Michael Turner

Katie Row Windsor Elementary Bertie Mona Gilliam

Misty Rushing South Creek Middle Martin Jan Wagner

Karen Sharpe West Bertie Elementary Bertie Wesley Dudley

Melissa Strickland Manning Elementary Roanoke Rapids Michael Ferguson

Trena Sutton Mt. Energy Elementary Granville Julie Finch

Ronica Watford Bearfield Primary Hertford Julie Shields

Jennifer Wilker Warren New Tech High Warren Iris Castellon-

Dethmers


March 2014




Melissa Allred North Asheboro

Middle Asheboro City Candace Call

Karen Anderson High Point Central

High Guilford Bob Christina

Aaron Bailey Hanes Magnet Winston-Salem/Forsyth Melita Wise

Clinton Baron Wiley Middle Winston-Salem/Forsyth Sean Gaillard

Adjoa Botwe-Rankin Allen Middle Guilford Dr. Shelia Gorham

Bennie Bradley Cone Elementary Guilford Chris Weikart

Curry E. Bryan, IV Graham Middle Alamance-Burlington Ronald Villines

Catherine Cecchini Hairston Middle Guilford Rydell Harrison

Tom Ehlers Montlieu Elementary Guilford Ged O’Donnell

Madison Hester Peeler Open

Elementary Guilford Mark Harris

Traci Horton Haw River Elementary Alamance-Burlington Jennifer Reed

Candace Hudson Hunter Elementary Guilford Michelle Thompson

Malinda Kerns Hall-Woodward Elem Winston-Salem/Forsyth Celena Tribby

Noelle Leslie Northeast High Guilford Fabby Wiliams

Duane Lewis Welborn Middle Guilford Naquita Brewington-

McCormick

Bobbie Lynch Walkertown Middle Winston-Salem/Forsyth Piper Hendrix

Barbara McRae Kiser Middle Guilford Sharon McCants

Yajaira Owens Loflin Elementary Asheboro City Paula Owens

Teresa Rose Kernersville

Elementary Winston-Salem/Forsyth Becky Carter

Christopher Scott Dudley High Guilford Jesse Pratt

Michelle Varoutsos Old Town Elementary Winston-Salem/Forsyth Rusty Hall

Ashley

Westmoreland Hillcrest Elementary Alamance-Burlington Julie Bethea


March 2014




Stephanie Norris Clarkton School of Discovery Bladen Stephanie Ensminger

Jimmy Price South Columbus High Columbus Eddie Beck

Rachel Smith Acme-Delco Elementary Columbus Janet Hedrick

Chad Barbour Elizabeth Cashwell Elem Cumberland Kim Robertson

Corine Warren Brentwood Elementary Cumberland Anne McFadyen

Grisel Cuadrado Highland Elementary Harnett Tina Miller

Kimberly Davis Highland Elementary Harnett Clara Clinton

Catherine Jones South Harnett Elementary Harnett Brian Graham

Chris Pearson Western Harnett High Harnett Stan Williams

Tonja McGill Sandy Grove Middle Hoke Erica Fortenberry

Angela Colvin Tramway Elementary Lee Anne Beal

Crystal Colwell Southern Lee High Lee Bonnie Almond

Wendy Perrell B. T. Bullock Elementary Lee Pam Sutton

Christopher Jonassen Montgomery County Montgomery Joan Frye

Julia Brown New Century Middle Moore Robin Calcutt

Clarkie Hussey Sandhills Farm Life Elem Moore Nora McNeill

Shaun Krencicki Union Pines High Moore Robin Lea

Jennifer Wiley Elise Middle Moore Seth Powers

Regina Hyde Peterson Elementary Robeson Kristen Stone

Kristi Maultsby Tabor City Elementary Whiteville City Wendell Duncan


March 2014


Appendix F. Summary Statistics for Cohort 1’s, Cohort 2’s, and Cohort 3’s Internship

Placement Schools

Table F1. NELA Cohort 1 Internship Placement Schools

NELA Cohort 1 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

21 Interns

11 Priority Schools

9 Schools Progress

1 No Recognition

0 Schools Distinction

5 Priority Schools

14 Schools Progress

0 No Recognition


4 Priority Schools

15 Schools Progress

1 No Recognition


9 Counties and

# Interns:

Hertford = 4

Roanoke

Rapids = 4

Halifax = 3

Warren = 3

Bertie = 2

Northampton = 2

Franklin = 1

Johnston = 1

Wake = 1

% Students

F/RL = 68.7%

School Size = 550

16/21 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 45.5%–81.5%

Average = 56.7%

Mathematics/Algebra I

Range = 29.5%–87.0%

Average = 66.8%

% Students F/RL

Range = 32.0%–95.8%

Average = 68.1%

School Size

Range = 178–1,124

Average = 554

5/21 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 43.3%–85.9%

Average = 60.7%


Range = 52.1%–89.5%

Average = 73.9%

% Students F/RL

Range = 29.6%–92.8%

Average = 67.4%

School Size

Range = 182–1,179

Average = 548

1/21 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 43.6%–80.4%

Average = 59.7%


Range = 60.8%–87.7%

Average = 74.0%

% Students F/RL

Range = 28.6%–95.3%

Average = 70.5%

School Size

Range = 183–1,132

Average = 547

Total Change In %

Over Three Years

Reading/English I = +3.0% Range = -3.1% to +26.1%

Mathematics/Algebra I = +7.2% Range = -3.3% to +33.8%


March 2014


Table F2. PTLA Cohort 1 Internship Placement Schools*

PTLA Cohort 1 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

21 Interns

5 Low Performing

10 Priority Schools

7 Schools Progress

2 No Recognition


0 Low Performing

13 Priority Schools

9 Schools Progress

1 No Recognition


0 Low Performing

10 Priority Schools

11 Schools Progress

1 No Recognition


4 Counties and

# Interns:

Guilford = 10

Winston-Salem

Forsyth = 7

Alamance-

Burlington = 3

Asheboro City

Schools = 1

% Students

F/RL = 75.8%

School Size = 579

14/21 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 24.1%–75.6%

Average = 49.3%


Range = 20.0%–85.1%

Average= 60.0%

% Students F/RL

Range = 39.3%–100%

Average = 74.1%

School Size

Range = 252–1,756

Average = 567

7/21 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 25.7%–82.8%

Average = 56.0%


Range = 37.3%–81.4%

Average= 65.7%

% Students F/RL

Range = 39.0%–98.9%

Average = 75.1%

School Size

Range = 244–1,764

Average = 587

2/21 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 32.3%–82.0%

Average = 55.6%


Range = 36.0%–86.7%

Average= 67.3%

% Students F/RL

Range = 43.5%–98.0%

Average = 78.2%

School Size

Range = 213–1,806

Average = 584

Total change in %

over three years

Reading/English I= +6.3% Range = -12.0% to +24.5%

Mathematics/Algebra I= +7.3% Range = -9.2% to 40.4%

*Numbers do not add up to 21 because Atkins High School is split into three separate schools for reporting, and Diggs-

Latham were two separate schools until 2010–11 when they merged.


March 2014


Table F3. SLA Cohort 1 Internship Placement Schools*

SLA Cohort 1 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

20 Interns

2 Low Performing

3 Priority Schools

13 Schools Progress

1 No Recognition


1 Low Performing

3 Priority Schools

12 Schools Progress

1 No Recognition


1 Low Performing

2 Priority Schools

12 Schools Progress

3 No Recognition


12 Counties and

# Interns:

Harnett = 2

Moore = 2

Anson = 1

Cumberland = 4

Montgomery = 1

Hoke = 1

Whiteville City = 1

Columbus = 1

Lee = 3

Robeson = 2

Richmond = 1

Scotland = 1

% Students

F/RL = 68.5%

School Size = 615

11/19 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 41.0%–71.7%

Average = 58.3%


Range = 33.9%–85.6%

Average = 68.9%

% Students F/RL

Range = 26.8%–87.8%

Average = 66.5%

School Size

Range = 186–1,162

Average = 638

8/19 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 48.9%–83.9%

Average = 64.2%


Range = 26.1%–90.5%

Average = 72.1%

% Students F/RL

Range = 30.8%–91.9%

Average = 68.2%

School Size

Range = 160–1,174

Average = 607

3/20 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 43.6%–88.5%

Average = 64.6%


Range = 22.1%–86.9%

Average = 70.1%

% Students F/RL

Range = 35.1%–88.2%

Average = 70.9%

School Size

Range = 159–1,181

Average = 600

Total change in %

over three years

Reading/English I= +6.3% Range = -12.2% to +18.9%

Mathematics/Algebra I= +1.2% Range = -21.0% to +25.8%

*Numbers do not add up to 20 because East Rockingham Elementary did not open until the 2010–11 school year;

also, North Harnett Primary does not have test score data after 2009 because it moved to K–2.


March 2014


Table F4. NELA Cohort 2 Internship Placement Schools*

*Numbers do not add up to 21 because Winstead Avenue Elementary School is K–2 and does not have data and

Riverside Middle School just opened.

**Halifax, Warren, Bertie, Northampton, and Hertford Counties all had Interns before but do not now.

NELA Cohort 2 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

21 Interns

1 Low Performing

3 Priority Schools

11 Schools Progress

3 No Recognition

1 School of Distinction

0 Low Performing

3 Priority Schools

11 Schools Progress

4 No Recognition


0 Low Performing

2 Priority Schools

12 Schools Progress

2 No Recognition


7 Counties and

# schools of hire:**

Roanoke

Rapids = 1

Franklin = 1

Nash = 10

Edgecombe=3

Granville= 3

Vance= 1

Martin = 2

% Students

F/RL = 60.2%

School Size = 668

14/19 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 21.10%–

74.80%

Average = 61.05%


Range = 46.70%–

89.40%

Average = 71.65%

% Students F/RL

Range = 23.90%–

97.06%

Average = 55.92%

School Size

Range= 262 to 1,180

Average = 674.50

6/19 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 37.40%–

77.30%

Average = 63.09%


Range = 46.30%–

92.40%

Average = 74.34%

% Students F/RL

Range = 33.33%–

99.75%

Average = 59.70%

School Size

Range = 256 to 1,184

Average = 667.25

2/19 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 44.40%–

79.30%

Average = 64.78%


Range = 39.90%–

90.50%

Average = 74.80%

% Students F/RL

Range = 40.23%–

96.27%

Average = 65.03%

School Size

Range = 355 to 1,231

Average = 663.70

Total change in %

over three years




March 2014


Table F5. PTLA Cohort 2 Internship Placement Schools

PTLA Cohort 2 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

20 Interns

4 Low Performing

4 Priority Schools

9 Schools Progress

3 No Recognition


0 Low Performing

5 Priority Schools

11 Schools Progress

2 No Recognition


0 Low Performing

5 Priority Schools

13 Schools Progress

1 No Recognition

1 School Distinction

4 Counties and

# Interns:

Guilford = 10

Winston-Salem

Forsyth = 7

Alamance-

Burlington = 3

% Students

F/RL = 66.6%

School Size = 739

10/20 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 33.50%–

75.60%

Average = 56.16%


Range = 25.40%–

85.10%

Average = 63.37%

% Students F/RL

Range = 30.60%–

92.94%

Average = 64.06%

School Size

Range = 363 to 1,469

Average = 746.25

3/20 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 38.80%–

81.30%

Average = 60.47%


Range = 40.00%–

87.00%

Average = 69.82%

% Students F/RL

Range = 31.30%–

97.30%

Average = 65.71%

School Size

Range = 343 to 1,386

Average = 728.95

1/20 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 42.50%–

82.00%

Average = 60.95%


Range = 54.10%–

81.90%

Average = 71.14%

% Students F/RL

Range = 40.53%–

93.36%

Average = 69.91%

School Size

Range = 347 to 1,365

Average = 726.40

Total change in %

over three years




March 2014


Table F6. SLA Cohort 2 Internship Placement Schools*

SLA Cohort 2 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

21 Interns

1 Low Performing

6 Priority Schools

11 Schools Progress

2 No Recognition


1 Honor School of

Excellence

0 Low Performing

4 Priority Schools

13 Schools Progress

1 No Recognition


1 Honor School of

Excellence

0 Low Performing

2 Priority Schools

12 Schools Progress

3 No Recognition


1 Honor School of

Excellence

10 Counties and

# Interns:

Bladen = 1

Harnett = 1

Moore = 4

Cumberland = 3

Hoke = 1

Columbus =1

Lee = 4

Robeson = 2

Richmond = 3

Scotland = 1

% Students

F/RL = 63.3%

School Size = 711

10/21 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 30.00%–

85.90%

Average = 57.58%


Range = 8.70%–93.10%

Average = 63.46%

% Students F/RL

Range = 24.91%–

79.26%

Average = 61.36%

School Size

Range = 217 to 1,472

Average = 712.86

6/20 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 10.00%–

87.50%

Average = 61.32%


Range = 25.00%–

93.70%

Average = 69.71%

% Students F/RL

Range = 25.00%–

84.69%

Average = 62.87%

School Size

Range = 205 to 1,619

Average = 703.45

0/20 Met AYP

Reading/English I**

Range = 53.30%–

86.80%

Average = 66.77%

Mathematics/Algebra

I

Range = 30.40 %–

92.40%

Average = 71.81%

% Students F/RL

Range = 24.30%–

85.23%

Average = 65.77%

School Size

Range = 210 to 1,615

Average = 716.68

Total change in %

over three years



*Numbers do not add up to 21 because Scotland High School is split into two separate schools for reporting;

Southern Pines Primary School is K–2 so no test data, and North Harnett Primary School became K–2 in 2009–10

school year so no test data.

**Richmond County Senior High excluded from English analysis due to missing English scores for 2008–09 and

2009–10 school years.


March 2014


Table F7. NELA Cohort 3 Internship Placement Schools

NELA Cohort 3 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

20 Interns

4 Priority Schools

12 Schools of Progress

2 No Recognition


4 Priority Schools


2 No Recognition


1 Low Performing

4 Priority Schools


2 No Recognition


10 Counties and

# Interns:

Hertford = 2

Roanoke

Rapids = 3

Halifax = 1

Warren = 1

Bertie = 4

Edgecombe = 2

Franklin = 1

Granville = 3

Martin = 2

Weldon City = 1

% Students

F/RL = 62.5%

School Size = 520

11 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 36.5%–80.5%

Average = 64.2%


Range = 20.7%–92.4%

Average = 71.5%

% Students F/RL

Range = 32.4%–89.8%

Average = 58.6%

School Size

Range = 64-931

Average = 526

3 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 40%–80.6%

Average = 62.49%


Range = 6.3%–90.7%

Average = 69.2%

% Students F/RL

Range = 34.1%–92.2%

Average = 62.5%

School Size

Range = 112–914

Average = 530

7 Met AMO

(formerly AYP)

Reading/English I

Range = 44.4%–85.3%

Average = 66.7%


Range = 36.4%–94.1%

Average = 71.1%

% Students F/RL

Range = 30.8%–94.8%

Average = 66.3%

School Size

Range = 135–852

Average = 505

Total change in %

over three years

Reading/English I = +2.6% Range = -26.4% to + 26.5%

Mathematics/Algebra I = -0.4% Range = -26.2% to + 42.1%


March 2014


Table F8. PTLA Cohort 3 Internship Placement Schools

PTLA Cohort 3 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

22 Interns

7 Priority Schools


0 No Recognition


4 Priority Schools


3 No Recognition


4 Priority Schools


5 No Recognition


1 Low Performing

4 Counties and

# Interns:

Guilford = 11

Winston-Salem

Forsyth = 6

Alamance

Burlington = 3

Asheboro City

Schools = 2

% Students

F/RL = 72.4%

School Size = 679

9 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 42.9%–83.9%

Average = 58.6%


Range = 38.2%–87.7%

Average = 71.2%

% Students F/RL

Range = 23.5%–96.0%

Average = 67.0%

School Size

Range = 348-1493

Average = 669

1 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 41.8%–83.9%

Average = 59.2%


Range = 39.9%–87.5%

Average = 71.4%

% Students F/RL

Range = 28.9%–97.0%

Average = 74.5%

School Size

Range = 357–1449

Average = 680

4 Met AMO

(formerly AYP)

Reading/English I

Range = 39.3%–82.8%

Average = 58.1%


Range = 52.8%–87.5%

Average = 72.2%

% Students F/RL

Range = 28.5%–

97.72%

Average = 75.8%

School Size

Range = 343–1373

Average = 689

Total change in %

over three years

Reading/English I = -0.6% Range = -12.2% to + 12.4%

Mathematics/Algebra I = +1.05% Range = -11.7% to + 14.6%


March 2014


Table F9. SLA Cohort3 Internship Placement Schools*

SLA Cohort 3 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

20 Interns

3 Priority Schools


2 No Recognition

5 Schools of Distinction

1 Priority Schools

6 Schools Progress

8 No Recognition


1 Priority Schools

11 Schools Progress

4 No Recognition


1 Honor School of

Excellence

9 Counties and

# Interns:

Bladen = 1

Harnett = 4

Moore = 4

Cumberland = 2

Hoke = 1

Columbus = 3

Lee = 3

Robeson = 1

Montgomery = 1

% Students

F/RL = 57.8%

School Size = 662

7 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 48.8%–89.6%

Average = 67.9%


Range = 64.1%–94.8%

Average = 75.7%

% Students F/RL

Range = 24.0%–85.4%

Average = 56.9%

School Size

Range = 205–1348

Average = 669

1 Met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 52.4%–88.5%

Average = 68.7%


Range = 65.6%–91.9%

Average = 76.4%

% Students F/RL

Range = 24.3%–91.1%

Average = 60.6%

School Size

Range = 210–1341

Average = 658

7 Met AMO

(formerly AYP)

Reading/English I

Range = 48.8%–93.5%

Average = 69.3%


Range = 57.4%–91.6%

Average = 78.6%

% Students F/RL

Range = 27.2%–92.8%

Average = 60.6%

School Size

Range = 209-1361

Average = 659

Total change in %

over three years

Reading/English I = +1.41% Range = -12.4% to + 8.6%

Mathematics/Algebra I = +3.0% Range = -9.4% to + 20.4%

*Numbers do not add up to two because Sandy Grove Middle is a new school in 2013-14, therefore has no data.


March 2014


Appendix G. Raw Statistics for Cohort 1’s, Cohort 2’s, and Cohort 3’s Internship

Placement Schools

Cohort 1 Internships, 2008–2011

Table G1. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, NELA, Total Change in Percentages, 2008–2011

Name School of Placement LEA

Total Change in

Percentages

English I/ Reading

Algebra I/ Mathematics

Mark Barfield Northampton High School Northampton 26.10% 23.20%

Annabel Bello Belmont Elementary School Roanoke

Rapids 0.70% -0.50%

Melissa Harris

Richardson Roanoke Rapids High

School Roanoke

Rapids 7.30% 6.80%

Ryan Hurley Mariam Boyd Elementary

School Warren 4.20% 2.00%

DeMetra Lassiter Ahoskie Elementary School Hertford 5.90% 14.30%

Mark Long Hertford High School Hertford 5.20% 33.80%

Douglas Miller Hollister Elementary School Halifax -1.90% 4.00%

Carol Mizelle Bertie Middle School Bertie 0.90% 7.80%

Sean Murphy South Johnston High School Johnston -1.80% 1.50%

Tracey Neal South Warren Elementary


Erin Swanson AB Combs Magnet

Elementary School Wake 2.60% 0.00%

Gonzalo Pitpit Bertie Middle School Bertie 0.90% 7.80%

Kim Scott Bearfield Primary School Hertford 5.10% 11.40%

Ebony Spivey

Jason Mariam Boyd Elementary


Mae Rose Riverview Elementary

School Hertford -1.90% 2.50%

Erica Staine

Shoulders Long Mill Elementary

School Franklin 4.10% 4.30%

Hope Walker Belmont Elementary School Roanoke

Rapids 0.70% -0.50%

Yolanda Wiggins Hollister Elementary School Halifax -1.90% 4.00%

Cecilya Williams Chaloner Middle School Roanoke

Rapids 4.80% 6.80%

Christina Williams Central Elementary School Northampton -3.10% -3.30%

Shelley Williams Hollister Elementary School Halifax -1.90% 4.00%


March 2014


Table G2. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, PTLA, Total Change in Percentages, 2008–2011


Total Change in

Percentages

English I/ Reading


Jamyle Acevedo

(“Kathy”) Page High School GCS 10.90% 12.00%

Adrea Alexander Hunter Elementary School GCS 24.50% 20.70%

Michelle Breen Forest Park Elementary School WSFC 8.70% 13.50%

Thomas Brookshire

(“Jeff”)

Atkins High School— Computer Technology

WSFC

13.20% 4.00%

Atkins High School— Pre-Engineering

2.60% -5.40%

Atkins High School— Biotechnology

16.90% 22.20%

Jason Cayton (“Todd”) Wiley Elementary School GCS 9.50% 16.30%

Ronnie Christian Northwest Middle School WSFC 0.20% 5.00%

Amy Day Kiser Middle School GCS 2.90% 0.30%

Melvin Diggs Graham Middle School ABS 1.90% 0.80%

Cassandra Dobson

Diggs-Latham Elementary

School—Diggs* WSFC

0.50% 5.90%

Diggs-Latham Elementary

School—Latham* 2.20% 3.40%

Scarlet Evans North Hills Elementary School WSFC 8.60% 8.80%

Keisha Gabriel Parkland High School WSFC 11.00% 27.00%

Shadonna Gunn Haw River Elementary School ABS 4.50% 3.10%

Jusmar Maness Southern Middle School GCS 2.90% 3.30%

Charnelle Newkirk Oak Hill Elementary School GCS 23.70% 40.40%

Ian Olsen Hill Magnet Middle School WSFC -5.30% 2.00%

Stephanie Rakes Foust Elementary School GCS 9.40% 6.00%

Chameeka Smith Asheboro High School ACS -0.30% -9.20%

Ashley Triplett Vandalia Elementary School GCS 14.50% 5.20%

Weaver Walden Johnson Street Global Studies GCS -2.10% 5.90%

Cynthia White Jones Elementary School GCS -3.80% -4.10%

Hollis Wroblewski

(“Holly”) Grove Park Elementary School ABS -12.00% -2.80%

*Diggs and Latham were separate schools; merged for the 2010–11 school year.


March 2014


Table G3. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, SLA, Total Change in Percentages, 2008–2011


Total Change in

Percentages

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Mathematics

Angela D. Wright Harnett Primary School Harnett -12.20% -21.00%

Robert Forrest Breyer North Harnett Primary

School* Harnett N/A N/A

Dante Pool Robbins Elementary

School Moore -3.20% -9.10%

Jennifer C. Purvis Union Pines High School Moore 16.80% 25.80%

Maresa Dutton

Phillips Anson High School Anson 18.90% -11.80%

Lawrence Leroy

Smalls Ii Spring Lake Middle

School Cumberland 5.70% 9.50%

Lamonica Tillery Elizabeth Cashwell

Elementary School Cumberland 15.60% 12.70%

Evan L. Roush Luscille Souders


Adam Michael

Mowery Margaret Willis


Amy Lynn Parsons East Montgomery High

School Montgomery 9.80% -3.00%

David Renninger Sandy Grove Elementary

School Hoke 7.50% 3.00%

Shelly F. Cullipher E. Columbus High School Whiteville

City 9.10% 4.30%

Dianna W. Bellamy Tabor City Elementary

School Columbus 15.70% 10.50%

Camilla Price House Southern Lee High School Lee 12.40% 0.60%

Penny McNeill-Lind J. R. Ingram Elementary

School Lee 3.90% 2.10%

Elizabeth Faulk

Bridges Sanlee Middle School Lee 5.70% 9.40%

Cynthia Ann Lewis South Robeson High

School Robeson 3.80% -11.60%

Tara Dee Bullard Pembroke Elementary

School Robeson 5.90% 1.90%

Joyce Morgan McRae East Rockingham

Elementary School** Richmond N/A N/A

Barbara Denise-

Adams Pate Gardner Elementary

School Scotland 11.90% 9.40%

*Since 2009, this school has been K–2 only.

**Just opened in the 2010–11 school year.


March 2014


Table G4. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, NELA, 2008–09 School Data

School of

Placement English I/ Reading

Algebra

I/ Math-

ematics Designation AYP

Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students School

Size

Northampton High

School 53.20% 48.20% Priority School

Not Met

(6 of 13 Targets Met) 64.50% 451

Belmont

Elementary School 61.50% 78.60% School of Progress Met 19 of 19 Targets 59.00% 782

Roanoke Rapids

High School 73.10% 55.40% No Recognition

Not Met

(11 of 15 Targets Met) 32.60% 833

Mariam Boyd


Ahoskie

Elementary School 53.10% 64.00% Priority School Met 21 of 21 Targets 73.60% 480

Hertford High


Not Met

(9 of 15 Targets Met) 64.20% 900

Hollister


Bertie Middle

School 46.70% 72.50% Priority School Met 21 of 21 Targets 80.10% 710

South Johnston

High School 81.50% 71.90% School of Progress

Not Met

(12 of 17 Targets Met) 32.00% 1124

South Warren


AB Combs Magnet


Bertie Middle


Bearfield Primary


Mariam Boyd


Riverview

Elementary School 45.50% 58.30% Priority School

Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 95.80% 441

Long Mill


Belmont


Hollister


Chaloner Middle

School 62.70% 80.90% School of Progress Met 21 of 21 Targets 48.40% 607

Central Elementary


Hollister



March 2014



School of


Algebra

I/ Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students School

Size

Northampton High

School 75.80% 77.50% School of Progress

Not Met

(9 of 13 Targets Met) 69.40% 450

Belmont

Elementary School 64.50% 79.30% School of Progress

Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 60.30% 757

Roanoke Rapids


Not Met

(11 of 15 Targets Met) 35.70% 847

Mariam Boyd


Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 91.30% 335

Ahoskie


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 78.50% 481

Hertford High


Not Met

(4 of 13 Targets Met) 68.00% 800

Hollister


Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 74.20% 221

Bertie Middle


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 76.00% 658

South Johnston

High School 85.90% 74.60%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(9 of 19 Targets Met) 29.70% 1179

South Warren


AB Combs Magnet

Elementary School 77.50% 87.90%

School of

Distinction Met 27 of 27 Targets 29.60% 808

Bertie Middle


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 76.00% 658

Bearfield Primary


Not Met

(12 of 15 Targets Met) 77.60% 760

Mariam Boyd


Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 91.30% 335

Riverview


Long Mill


Belmont


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 60.30% 757

Hollister


Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 74.20% 221

Chaloner Middle


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 44.90% 578

Central Elementary


Hollister


Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 74.20% 221


March 2014



School of


Algebra

I/ Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students School

Size

Northampton High


Belmont


Not Met

(13 of 21 Targets Met) 71.90% 760

Roanoke Rapids


Not Met

(11 of 17 Targets Met) 43.30% 830

Mariam Boyd


Not Met

(12 of 13 Targets Met) 95.30% 318

Ahoskie


Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 81.70% 518

Hertford High


Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 66.00% 783

Hollister


Not Met

(9 of 17 Targets Met) 83.80% 244

Bertie Middle


Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 71.10% 639

South Johnston


School of

Distinction

Not Met

(13 of 17 Targets Met) 28.60% 1132

South Warren


Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 77.10% 183

AB Combs Magnet


School of

Distinction

Not Met

(23 of 27 Targets Met) 30.60% 803

Bertie Middle


Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 71.10% 639

Bearfield Primary


Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 82.30% 758

Mariam Boyd


Not Met

(12 of 13 Targets Met) 95.30% 318

Riverview


Not Met

(9 of 17 Targets Met) 86.00% 441

Long Mill


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 47.20% 538

Belmont


Not Met

(13 of 21 Targets Met) 71.90% 760

Hollister


Not Met

(9 of 17 Targets Met) 83.80% 244

Chaloner Middle


Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 46.00% 646

Central Elementary


Not Met

(9 of 13 Targets Met) 87.50% 291

Hollister


Not Met

(9 of 17 Targets Met) 83.80% 244


March 2014


Table G7. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, PTLA, 2008–09 School Data

School of Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Math-


Percentage of

Low-Income

Students

School

Size

Page High School 71.10% 48.90% No Recognition Met 17 of 17 Targets 39.70% 1756

Hunter Elementary


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 87.00% 434

Forest Park Elementary

School 31.10% 56.20% Low Performing Met 21 of 21 Targets 100.00% 500

Atkins High—

Computer Tech 34.20% 39.60% Low Performing

Not Met

(1 of 7 Targets Met) 69.00% 331

Atkins High—

Pre-Engineering 43.20% 43.20% Priority School

Not Met

(1 of 11 Targets Met) 73.80% 259

Atkins High—

Biotechnology 41.60% 20.00% Low Performing

Not Met

(9 of 13 Targets Met) 75.00% 289

Wiley Elementary


Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 97.40% 270

Northwest Middle


Kiser Middle School 62.10% 80.10% School of Progress Met 27 of 27 Targets 55.80% 704

Graham Middle School 55.00% 73.80% School of Progress Met 29 of 29 Targets 64.70% 642

Diggs-Latham

Elementary—Diggs* 49.00% 69.60% Priority School Met 13 of 13 Targets 92.40% 267

Diggs-Latham Elem—

Latham* 47.30% 72.10% Priority School Met 17 of 17 Targets 100.00% 324

North Hills Elementary


Not Met

(11 of 13 Targets Met) 95.90% 374

Parkland High School 58.10% 35.10% Priority School Not Met

(16 of 19 Targets Met) 56.80% 1355

Haw River Elementary

School 37.30% 62.40% Low Performing Met 25 of 25 Targets 80.30% 429

Southern Middle


Oak Hill Elementary

School 24.10% 39.20% Low Performing

Not Met

(17 of 23 Targets Met) 98.40% 377

Hill Magnet Middle


Foust Elementary


Asheboro High School 74.20% 45.20% No Recognition Not Met

(17 of 19 Targets Met) 39.30% 1233

Vandalia Elementary


Johnson Street Global

Studies 66.30% 72.80% School of Progress

Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 67.10% 363

Jones Elementary


Grove Park Elementary




March 2014



School of Placement

English

I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Math-


Percentage of

Low-Income

Students

School

Size

Page High School 82.80% 66.90% School of


Hunter Elementary School 51.70% 72.90% Priority School Met 21 of 21 Targets 93.40% 408

Forest Park Elementary


Not Met

(12 of 21 Targets Met) 93.80% 520

Atkins High—

Computer Technology 55.90% 37.30% Priority School

Not Met

(3 of 12 Targets Met) 78.80% 284

Atkins High—


Not Met

(2 of 5 Targets Met) 80.00% 247

Atkins High—

Biotechnology 65.10% 41.40% Priority School

Not Met

(4 of 7 Targets Met) 80.30% 272

Wiley Elementary School 25.70% 61.00% Priority School Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 98.90% 244

Northwest Middle School 66.60% 81.40% School of Progress Not Met

(30 of 31 Targets Met) 59.20% 895

Kiser Middle School 65.60% 78.20% School of Progress Not Met

(26 of 29 Targets Met) 54.10% 758

Graham Middle School 58.70% 76.00% School of Progress Not Met

(27 of 29 Targets Met) 71.30% 628

Diggs-Latham

Elementary—Diggs* 42.60% 61.40% Priority School

Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 80.60% 287

Diggs-Latham

Elementary—Latham* 47.70% 71.10% Priority School

Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 95.10% 287

North Hills Elementary


Parkland High School 72.90% 64.50% School of Progress Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 62.80% 1295

Haw River Elementary


Southern Middle School 56.90% 76.80% School of Progress Not Met

(33 of 35 Targets Met) 63.20% 798

Oak Hill Elementary


Hill Magnet Middle


Not Met

(18 of 23 Targets Met) 96.00% 250

Foust Elementary School 42.40% 56.30% Priority School Not Met

(15 of 19 Targets Met) 91.10% 339

Asheboro High School 80.20% 56.00% No Recognition Not Met

(15 of 21 Targets Met) 39.00% 1247

Vandalia Elementary


Johnson Street Global

Studies 68.80% 77.60% School of Progress

Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 69.50% 343

Jones Elementary School 74.20% 80.40% School of Progress Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 47.60% 690

Grove Park Elementary




March 2014



School of Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Math-


Percentage of

Low-Income

Students

School

Size

Page High School 82.00% 60.90% School of

Distinction

Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 43.50% 1806

Hunter Elementary


Not Met

( 20 of 21 Targets Met) 95.80% 424

Forest Park


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 97.70% 540

Atkins High—

Computer

Technology

47.40% 43.60% Priority School Not Met

(3 of 7 Targets Met) 81.60% 258

Atkins High—


Not Met

(5 of 8 Targets Met) 82.70% 213

Atkins High—

Biotechnology 58.50% 42.20% Priority School

Not Met

(5 of 7 Targets Met) 83.00% 234

Wiley Elementary


Northwest Middle


Not Met 17 of 29

Targets Met) 62.60% 878

Kiser Middle School 65.00% 80.40% School of Progress Not Met

(21 of 29 Targets Met) 58.80% 824

Graham Middle


Not Met

(17 of 29 Targets Met) 76.60% 628

Diggs-Latham

Elementary School* 49.50% 75.50% School of Progress

Not Met

(14 of 21 Targets Met) 89.50% 438

North Hills


Not Met

(9 of 15 Targets Met) 97.00% 359

Parkland High


Haw River


Not Met

(13 of 23 Targets Met) 87.60% 433

Southern Middle


Not Met

(25 of 35 Targets Met) 67.80% 783

Oak Hill Elementary


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 97.70% 415

Hill Magnet Middle


Not Met

(17 of 25 Targets Met) 95.90% 286

Foust Elementary


Not Met

(15 of 21 Targets Met) 91.70% 313

Asheboro High

School 73.90% 36.00% No Recognition

Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 47.10% 1228

Vandalia Elementary


Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 79.30% 264

Johnson Street

Global Studies 64.20% 78.70% School of Progress

Not Met

(13 of 21 Targets Met) 73.10% 347

Jones Elementary


Not Met

(12 of 17 Targets Met) 53.00% 699

Grove Park


Not Met

(14 of 21 Targets Met) 73.90% 540



March 2014


Table G10. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, SLA, 2008–09 School Data

School of


Algebra

I/ Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students School

Size

Harnett Primary


North Harnett

Primary School* 71.60% 85.20% School of Progress Met 21 of 21 Targets 57.50% 601

Robbins Elementary


Union Pines High


Not Met

(11 of 13 Targets Met) 26.80% 1,162

Anson High School 41.00% 33.90% Low Performing Not Met

(0 of 13 Targets Met) 57.00% 924

Spring Lake Middle


Elizabeth Cashwell

Elementary School 41.90% 56.70% Low Performing

Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 75.20% 793

Luscille Souders


Margaret Willis


East Montgomery


Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 60.30% 593

Sandy Grove


E. Columbus High


Not Met

(11 of 15 Targets Met) 53.60% 546

Tabor City


Southern Lee High


Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 45.40% 1,071

J. R. Ingram


Sanlee Middle


Not Met

(26 of 29 Targets Met) Not Listed 779

South Robeson


Not Met

(8 of 16 Targets Met) 69.60% 520

Pembroke


East Rockingham

Elementary** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pate Gardner





March 2014



School of


Algebra

I/ Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students School

Size

Harnett Primary


Not Met

(13 of 17 Targets Met) 76.20% 601

North Harnett

Primary School* N/A N/A School of Progress

Not Met

(27 of 29 Targets Met) 67.20% 417

Robbins


Union Pines High

School 83.90% 69.10%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(12 of 15 Targets Met) 30.80% 1174


(3 of 17 Targets Met) 55.90% 819

Spring Lake

Middle School 48.90% 63.80% Priority School

Not Met

(17 of 19 Targets Met) 82.00% 421

Elizabeth Cashwell


Luscille Souders


Margaret Willis


East Montgomery


Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 66.00% 573

Sandy Grove


E. Columbus High


Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 51.20% 539

Tabor City


Southern Lee High


Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets Met) 48.80% 1083

J. R. Ingram


Not Met

(22 of 23 Targets Met) 60.40% 699

Sanlee Middle


South Robeson


Not Met

(4 of 14 Targets Met) 81.80% 526

Pembroke


Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 78.00% 754

East Rockingham

Elementary** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pate Gardner


School of





March 2014



School of


Algebra

I/ Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students School

Size

Harnett Primary


Not Met

(11 of 17 Targets Met) 78.60% 571

North Harnett

Primary School* N/A N/A Priority School

Not Met

(17 of 29 Targets Met) 69.10% 440

Robbins


Not Met

(12 of 21 Targets Met) 88.20% 450

Union Pines High

School 88.50% 77.80%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(12 of 17 Targets Met) 35.10% 1181


(13 of 17 Targets Met) 55.20% 804

Spring Lake Middle


Elizabeth Cashwell

Elementary School 57.50% 69.40% No Recognition

Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 79.10% 715

Luscille Souders


Not Met

(9 of 13 Targets Met) 72.20% 441

Margaret Willis


Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 82.80% 317

East Montgomery


Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 71.90% 566

Sandy Grove


Not Met

(13 of 21 Targets Met) 61.70% 542

E. Columbus High


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 57.80% 528

Tabor City


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 77.10% 497

Southern Lee High


Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets Met) 51.20% 1063

J. R. Ingram


Not Met

(22 of 25 Targets Met) 64.00% 677

San Lee Middle


Not Met

(26 of 29 Targets Met) 66.20% 810

South Robeson


Not Met

(2 of 17 Targets Met) 82.80% 503

Pembroke


Not Met

(10 of 17 Targets Met) 75.80% 725

East Rockingham

Elementary** 56.70% 82.80% School of Progress Met 21 of 21 Targets 80.30% 595

Pate Gardner


School of





March 2014




Name School of Internship LEA

Total Change in

Percentages

English I/ Reading


Amy Pearce Stocks Elementary School Edgecombe -0.30% 4.20%

Vernedette

Garland

Winstead Avenue

Elementary School* Nash/Rocky Mount N/A N/A

Kelly Shelton

Mudd

Southern Nash Middle

School Nash/Rocky Mount 4.90% 1.00%

Tonya Little Riverside Middle School** Martin N/A N/A

Kendrick Alston Coopers Elementary School Nash/Rocky Mount 2.40% 0.40%

Hugh Scott Southern Nash High School Nash/Rocky Mount 2.60% 0.00%

Teicher Patterson Rocky Mount Senior High


Lisa Pennington Long Mill Elementary

School Franklin 4.10% 4.30%

Jackson Olsen Zeb Vance Elementary

School Vance 2.80% 0.80%

Kim Allison Wilton Elementary School Granville -1.10% 0.70%

Jennifer Lewis Baskerville Elementary


Krista Fasioli Parker Middle School Nash/Rocky Mount -0.20% 6.80%

Tim Mudd DS Johnson Elementary

School Nash/Rocky Mount 2.30% -0.60%

Jennifer Berry Nashville Elementary School Nash/Rocky Mount 10.60% 2.90%

Zachary Marks Bailey Elementary School Nash/Rocky Mount 2.30% -5.50%

Erin Robbins JF Webb High School Granville -2.40% 12.10%

Angela Strother South Edgecombe Middle

School Edgecombe 5.70% 7.00%

Larry Hodgkins South Creek Middle

School*** Martin 8.90% 5.20%

Darren Gemzik Southwest Edgecombe High

School Edgecombe 1.50% -8.10%

Elizabeth Payne

Moran

West Oxford Elementary

School Granville 0.40% 7.90%

Lauren Greenhill Belmont Elementary School Roanoke Rapids

City Schools 0.70% -0.50%

*Grades K–2 only; no data.

**School just opened.

***In 2008–09, the school was named Roanoke Middle; renamed South Creek Middle in 2009–10 school year.


March 2014




Total Change in

Percentages

English I/ Reading


Kristen Gravely Williams High School ABSS 4.50% 7.20%

Thomas Kazimir Graham High School ABSS 15.70% 28.00%

Dana Roseboro Eastlawn Elementary School ABSS 10.80% -0.40%

Ben Cawley Montilieu Elementary School GCS 15.70% 21.70%

Kevin Conaway Hairston Middle School GCS 4.40% 1.60%

Vernon Hall Ferndale Middle School GCS 1.70% 1.20%

Darrell Harris Eastern Middle School GCS 1.70% 3.40%

Noel Keener Jones Elementary School GCS -3.80% -4.10%

Greta Martin Northeast Middle School GCS -0.20% -2.80%

Janiese Mckenzie Mendenhall Middle School GCS -1.80% -4.10%

Rashad Slade Johnson Street Global Studies GCS -2.10% 5.90%

Chelsea Smith Ragsdale High School GCS 17.30% 50.00%

Toks Wall Southern Middle School GCS 2.90% 3.30%

Kimberly Ashby North Forsyth High School WSFCS 3.00% 25.50%

Kathy Bryant Konnoak Elementary School WSFCS 3.90% -1.30%

Johnathan Hegedus Griffith Elementary School WSFCS 1.20% 3.20%

Larnitha Hunter Ibraham Elementary School WSFCS 2.50% -8.20%

Nicole Kurtz Paisley Middle School* WSFCS -4.20% 4.00%

Susan Miller Middle Fork Elementary School WSFCS 15.00% 19.90%

Colin Tribby Wiley Middle School WSFCS 7.60% 1.30%

*This is Paisley IB Magnet.


March 2014




Total Change in

Percentages

English I/ Reading


Elizabeth Cole Bladenboro Primary School Bladen County -1.20% -6.60%

Melissa Brewer B.T. Bullock Elementary School Lee County 1.90% 4.00%

Lisa Hain J.R. Ingram Elementary School Lee County 3.90% 2.10%

Andrew Keller Southern Lee High School Lee County 12.40% 0.60%

Christy Burgess Sharpe Sanlee Middle School Lee County 5.70% 9.40%

Matt Moore West Pine Middle School Moore County 0.90% -0.70%

Tracy Metcalf Elise Middle School Moore County 1.00% 5.00%

Marci Houseman Southern Pines Primary School* Moore County N/A N/A

Katrina Fox Southern Pine Elementary

School Moore County -1.90% 2.70%

Kelly Bullard Tabor City Elementary School Columbus County 15.70% 10.50%

Leslie Bailey West Hoke Middle School Hoke County 11.30% 18.10%

Jennifer Spivey North Harnett Primary School** Harnett County N/A N/A

Pam Lewis

Scotland High—Math, Science,

& Tech*** Scotland County

32.50% 19.40%

Scotland High—Visual &

Performing Arts*** 51.30% 38.20%

Matt Mcclean Elizabeth Cashwell Elementary

School

Cumberland

County 15.60% 12.70%

Kisha Timberlake Derr South View Middle School Cumberland

County 4.00% 6.50%

Mike Picciano Doug Byrd High School Cumberland

County 2.40% -2.90%

Kristy West St. Pauls Elementary School Robeson County 8.60% 7.40%

Anthony Barton Purnell Swett High School Robeson County 7.40% 9.20%

Maxine Brown Rockingham Middle School Richmond County -0.40% 3.00%

Jennifer Brach West Rockingham Elementary

School Richmond County 3.50% 7.50%

Joy Starlin Richmond Senior High School Richmond County N/A 20.90%

*K–2 school so no test scores.

**K–2 since 2009–10 so no test data.

***No 2009–10 test score data due to five or few students in each category for English and Algebra.


March 2014



School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Math-


Percentage of

Low-Income

Students

School

Size

Stocks Elementary


Winstead Avenue

Elementary* N/A N/A N/A N/A 54.56% 605

Southern Nash

Middle School 63.60% 79.30% School of Progress Met 29 of 29 Targets 54.89% 1054

Riverside Middle

School** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Coopers

Elementary School 72.90% 85.40% No Recognition Met 15 of 15 Targets 38.16% 645

Southern Nash


Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 44.74% 1180

Rocky Mount

Senior High School 59.90% 46.70% No Recognition

Not Met

(12 of 17 Targets Met) 49.79% 1176

Long Mill


Zeb Vance


Wilton Elementary

School 74.80% 89.40%

School of


Baskerville


Parker Middle


DS Johnson

Elementary School 42.10% 54.80% Low Performing Met 13 of 13 Targets 71.01% 421

Nashville


Bailey Elementary


JF Webb High


Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 23.90% 830

South Edgecombe

Middle School 49.60% 63.90% Priority School Met 19 of 19 Targets 61.28% 379

South Creek

Middle School*** 62.60% 79.50% School of Progress Met 17 of 17 Targets Not Listed 262

Southwest

Edgecombe High 65.40% 48.00% No Recognition

Not Met

(10 of 17 Targets Met) 47.16% 927

West Oxford


Not Met

(17 of 23 Targets Met) 69.25% 606

Belmont






March 2014



School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Math-


Percentage of

Low-Income

Students

School

Size

Stocks Elementary


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 68.86% 663

Winstead Avenue


Southern Nash

Middle School 66.90% 80.80% School of Progress

Not Met

(26 of 29 Targets Met) 58.75% 1017

Riverside Middle


Coopers


Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets Met) 42.75% 664

Southern Nash


Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 43.68% 1184

Rocky Mount

Senior High School 74.20% 62.20% No Recognition

Not Met

(11 of 17 Targets Met) 47.05% 1162

Long Mill


Zeb Vance


Wilton Elementary

School 77.30% 92.40%

School of


Baskerville


Parker Middle


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 72.55% 472

DS Johnson


Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 81.93% 455

Nashville


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 49.07% 797

Bailey Elementary


Not Met

(24 of 25 Targets Met) 71.43% 655

JF Webb High

School 59.60% 74.00% No recognition

Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 47.73% 764

South Edgecombe

Middle School 54.30% 70.00% No Recognition

Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 51.75% 383

South Creek

Middle School*** 64.70% 77.00% School of Progress Met 15 of 15 Targets Not listed 256

Southwest

Edgecombe High

School

69.80% 46.30% School of Progress Not Met

(12 of 17 Targets Met) 43.85% 931

West Oxford


Belmont


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 60.33% 757





March 2014



School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Math-


Percentage of

Low-Income

Students

School

Size

Stocks Elementary


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 75.49% 661

Winstead Avenue


Southern Nash


Not Met

(24 of 33 Targets Met) 60.20% 1050

Riverside Middle


Coopers


School of

Distinction

Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 48.48% 662

Southern Nash


Not Met

(21 of 24 Targets Met) 56.81% 1231

Rocky Mount

Senior High School 72.80% 63.00% School of Progress

Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 65.53% 1134

Long Mill


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 47.17% 538

Zeb Vance


Not Met

(13 of 17 Targets Met) 80.66% 410

Wilton Elementary

School 73.70% 90.10%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(13 of 17 Targets Met) 40.23% 627

Baskerville


Parker Middle


Not Met

(13 of 21 Targets Met) 76.15% 453

DS Johnson


Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 80.20% 471

Nashville


School of


Bailey Elementary


Not Met

(24 of 29 Targets Met) 77.86% 647

JF Webb High


Not Met

(10 of 17 Targets Met) 49.12% 711

South Edgecombe


Not Met

(12 of 17 Targets Met) 63.68% 366

South Creek

Middle School*** 71.50% 84.70% School of Progress

Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 64.27% 390

Southwest

Edgecombe High

School


(12 of 17 Targets Met) 51.86% 914

West Oxford


Not Met

(12 of 21 Targets Met) 76.07% 582

Belmont


Not Met

(13 of 21 Targets Met) 71.86% 760





March 2014



School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

William High


Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 30.60% 1238

Graham High


Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 52.18% 794

Eastlawn


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 92.94% 477

Montilieu


Not Met

(11 of 13 Targets Met) 88.91% 458

Hairston Middle

School 38.10% 58.50% Low Performing

Not Met

(24 of 25 Targets Met) 88.06% 598

Ferndale Middle


Eastern Middle

School 54.70% 66.50% No Recognition Met 33 of 33 Targets 59.73% 887

Jones Elementary


Northeast Middle


Mendenhall Middle


Johnson Street


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 67.12% 363

Ragsdale High


Southern Middle


North Forsyth High


Not Met

(13 of 22 Targets Met) 49.95% 1180

Konnoak


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 88.28% 647

Griffith Elementary


Not Met

(28 of 29 Targets Met) 70.11% 741

Ibraham Elementary


Paisley Middle

School* 75.10% 77.90% School of Progress Met 23 of 23 Targets 36.61% 620

Middle Fork


Not Met

(23 of 25 Targets Met) 76.01% 514

Wiley Middle




March 2014



School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

William High

School 81.30% 48.90%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets Met) 31.30% 1184

Graham High


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 56.80% 773

Eastlawn


Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets Met) 97.30% 446

Montilieu


Hairston Middle


Not Met

(24 of 25 Targets Met) 91.06% 544

Ferndale Middle


Not Met

(32 of 33 Targets Met) 71.49% 757

Eastern Middle


Not Met

(28 of 37 Targets Met) 61.02% 913

Jones Elementary


Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 47.58% 690

Northeast Middle


Not Met

(25 of 29 Targets Met) 57.48% 829

Mendenhall Middle


Not Met

(32 of 37 Targets Met) 44.71% 965

Johnson Street


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 69.53% 343

Ragsdale High


Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 38.50% 1,386

Southern Middle


Not Met

(33 of 35 Targets Met) 63.19% 798

North Forsyth High


Not Met

(10 of 21 Targets Met) 52.96% 1222

Konnoak


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 89.23% 612

Griffith Elementary


Not Met

(23 of 24 Targets Met) 78.07% 596

Ibraham Elementary


Paisley Middle

School* 75.30% 87.00%

School of


Middle Fork


Not Met

(23 of 25 Targets Met) 76.98% 448

Wiley Middle


Not Met

(24 of 29 Targets Met) 71.85% 549



March 2014



School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

William High


Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 40.53% 1140

Graham High


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 61.09% 753

Eastlawn


Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 93.36% 433

Montilieu


Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 88.44% 406

Hairston Middle


Not Met

(14 of 25 Targets Met) 90.93% 571

Ferndale Middle


Not Met

(25 of 33 Targets Met) 73.82% 833

Eastern Middle


Not Met

(27 of 33 Targets Met) 65.02% 943

Jones Elementary


Not Met

(12 of 17 Targets Met) 62.53% 699

Northeast Middle


Not Met

(17 of 27 Targets Met) 62.14% 835

Mendenhall Middle


Not Met

(22 of 33 Targets Met) 47.84% 983

Johnson Street


Not Met

(13 of 21 Targets Met) 73.08% 347

Ragsdale High


Southern Middle


Not Met

(25 of 35 Targets Met) 67.84% 783

North Forsyth High


Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 58.65% 1194

Konnoak


Not Met

(13 of 21 Targets Met) 90.47% 625

Griffith Elementary


Not Met

(13 of 25 Targets Met) 84.54% 547

Ibraham Elementary


Not Met

(10 of 17 Targets Met) 92.97% 463

Paisley Middle

School* 70.90% 81.90%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(21 of 29 Targets Met) 42.71% 729

Middle Fork


Not Met

(13 of 21 Targets Met) 84.56% 390

Wiley Middle


Not Met

(19 of 29 Targets Met) 73.78% 489



March 2014



School of Placement

English

I/

Reading

Algebra

I/

Math-


Percentage of

Low-Income

Students

School

Size

Bladenboro Primary


B.T. Bullock Elementary


J.R. Ingram Elementary


Southern Lee High


Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 45.00% 1071

SanLee Middle School 64.30% 77.50% School of Progress Not Met

(26 of 29 Targets Met) 63.00% 779

West Pine Middle School 85.90% 93.10% Honor School of

Excellence Met 21 of 21 Targets 24.91% 784

Elise Middle School 64.20% 82.30% School of Progress Met 21 of 21 Targets 79.26% 217

Southern Pines Primary

School* N/A N/A N/A N/A 56.54% 430

Southern Pine

Elementary School 69.40% 78.90% No Recognition Met 21 of 21 Targets 48.10% 427

Tabor City Elementary


West Hoke Middle


Not Met

(30 of 33 Targets Met) 72.99% 753

North Harnett Primary

School** 71.60% 85.20% School of Progress Met 21 of 21 Targets 57.49% 601

Scotland High—Math,

Science, & Tech*** 50.00% 38.50% School of Progress

Not Met

(9 of 11 Targets Met) 48.03% 242

Scotland High—Visual &

Performing Arts*** 30.00% 8.70% Priority School Met 7 of 7 Targets 56.22% 266

Elizabeth Cashwell


Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 75.20% 793

South View Middle


Doug Byrd High School 64.30% 55.30% Priority School Not Met

(15 of 19 Targets Met) 71.21% 1169

St. Pauls Elementary


Not Met

(32 of 33 Targets Met) 75.72% 879

Purnell Swett High


Not Met

(8 of 17 Targets Met) 60.00% 1472

Rockingham Middle


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 60.13% 745

West Rockingham


Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 77.72% 389

Richmond Senior High

School N/A 9.50% School of Progress

Not Met

(14 of 19 Targets Met) 53.42% 1,436


**K–2 since 2009–10, so no test data.



March 2014



School of Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Math-


Percentage of

Low-Income

Students

School

Size

Bladenboro Primary


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 70.54% 447

B.T. Bullock


Not Met

(25 of 27 Targets Met) 67.94% 645

J.R. Ingram


Not Met

(22 of 23 Targets Met) 60.44% 699

Southern Lee High


Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets Met) 48.79% 1083

SanLee Middle


West Pine Middle

School 87.50% 93.70%

Honor School of



Southern Pines

Primary School* N/A N/A N/A N/A 57.00% 442

Southern Pine


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 50.00% 421

Tabor City


West Hoke Middle


Not Met

(30 of 33 Targets Met) 80.38% 796


School** N/A N/A N/A N/A 67.19% 417


Science, & Tech*** N/A N/A School of Progress Met 5 of 5 Targets 47.15% 221

Scotland High—

Visual & Performing

Arts***


(9 of 13 Targets Met) 64.34% 268

Elizabeth Cashwell


South View Middle


Not Met

(23 of 25 Targets Met) 54.67% 723

Doug Byrd High


Not Met

(15 of 19 Targets Met) 69.96% 1238



Not Met

(24 of 31 Targets Met) 80.68% 882

Purnell Swett High


Not Met

(8 of 17 Targets Met) 63.79% 1619

Rockingham Middle


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 39.58% 744

West Rockingham


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 84.69% 368

Richmond Senior

High School N/A 35.80%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(13 of 17 Targets Met) 59.00% 1408





March 2014



School of Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra

I/

Math-


Percentage of

Low-Income

Students

School

Size

Bladenboro Primary


Not Met

(10 of 17 Targets Met) 75.51% 449

B.T. Bullock


Not Met

(24 of 25 Targets Met) 69.92% 630

J.R. Ingram


Not Met

(22 of 25 Targets Met) 63.96% 677

Southern Lee High


Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets Met) 51.24% 1063

SanLee Middle School 70.00% 86.90% School of Progress Not Met

(26 of 29 Targets Met) 66.17% 810

West Pine Middle

School 86.80% 92.40%

School of

Excellence

Not Met

(22 of 25 Targets Met) 24.30% 825

Elise Middle School 65.20% 87.30% School of Progress Not Met

(15 of 21 Targets Met) 82.32% 210

Southern Pines

Primary School* N/A N/A N/A N/A 56.05% 409

Southern Pine


Not Met

(15 of 21 Targets Met) 53.18% 421

Tabor City Elementary


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 77.11% 497

West Hoke Middle


Not Met

(28 of 33 Targets Met) 76.81% 855


School** N/A N/A N/A N/A 69.10% 440


Science, & Tech*** 82.50% 57.90%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(14 of 16 Targets Met) 44.38% 384

Scotland High—Visual

& Performing Arts*** 81.30% 46.90% Priority School

Not Met

(9 of 11 Targets Met) 70.18% 392

Elizabeth Cashwell


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 79.14% 715

South View Middle


Not Met

(18 of 27 Targets Met) 59.11% 792

Doug Byrd High


Not Met

(14 of 21 Targets Met) 70.33% 1223



Not Met

(28 of 29 Targets Met) 85.23% 909

Purnell Swett High


Not Met

(13 of 19 Targets Met) 69.02% 1615

Rockingham Middle


Not Met

(14 of 21 Targets Met) 64.87% 745

West Rockingham


Not Met

(13 of 17 Targets Met) 81.23% 358

Richmond Senior High

School 6.30% 30.40%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(14 of 19 Targets Met) 57.82% 1348

*K–2 school, so no test scores.




March 2014





Total Change in

Percentages

English I/ Reading


Joey Briggs Roanoke Rapids High

School RRGSD 4.80% 11.20%

Matt Smith SW Edgecombe High

School Edgecombe 3.90% -9.90%

Tawanda Smallwood Bertie High School Bertie -26.40% -26.20%

Stephanie Cottle Bertie Middle School Bertie 5.70% 1.00%

Chad Geary Chaloner Middle School RRGSD -1.80% -2.60%

Viola Gilbert Roanoke Valley Early

College Weldon City 13.00% 5.40%

Nafeesha Irby G.C. Hawley Middle

School Granville -0.40% -5.30%

Sophelia McMannen Wilton Elementary Granville -0.20% 1.70%

Cindy Miller-Walker Youngsville Elementary Franklin 3.20% 0.00%

Michelle Mobley East End Elementary Martin 9.00% -16.70%

Allie Pearson Hertford County Middle

School Hertford -1.80% -1.80%

Karyn Pleasant Southeast Halifax High

School Halifax 26.50% 42.10%

Lauren Prudenti Tarboro High School Edgecombe 7.40% -13.10%

Katie Row Windsor Elementary Bertie -0.90% -9.40%

Misty Rushing South Creek Middle

School Martin 3.70% 0.50%

Karen Sharpe West Bertie Elementary Bertie -1.80% -3.40%

Melissa Strickland Manning Elementary RRGSD -1.90% 2.50%

Trena Sutton Mary Potter Middle

School Granville 2.60% -5.10%

Ronica Watford Bearfield Primary Hertford 0.90% 9.60%

Jennifer Wilker Warren New Tech High


Note: South Creek Middle School was called Roanoke Middle School in 2009-10.


March 2014




Total Change in

Percentages

English I/ Reading


Melissa Allred North Asheboro Middle Asheboro

City -4.80% -5.30%

Karen Anderson High Point Central High

School Guilford 2.60% 1.60%

Aaron Bailey Hanes Magnet Middle Winston

Salem Forsyth -1.10% -2.30%

Clinton Baron Wiley Middle Winston


Adjoa Botwe-Rankin Allen Middle Guilford -3.30% -2.50%

Bennie Bradley Cone Elementary Guilford -12.20% -9.70%

Curry E. Bryan, IV Graham Middle Alamance-

Burlington -3.40% 0.40%

Catherine Cecchini

Moreland Hairston Middle Guilford 1.90% -3.90%

Tom Ehlers Montlieu Elementary Guilford 12.40% 11.00%

Madison Hester Peeler Open Elementary Guilford -4.40% 2.20%

Traci Horton Haw River Elementary Alamance-

Burlington -1.60% -11.70%

Candace Hudson Hunter Elementary Guilford 3.10% 14.60%

Malinda Kerns Hall-Woodward

Elementary

Winston


Noelle Leslie Northeast Guilford High

School Guilford -2.00% 7.90%

Duane Lewis Welborn Middle Guilford 2.90% 5.70%

Bobbie Lynch Walkertown Middle Winston


Barbara McRae Kiser Middle Guilford -1.90% 0.40%

Yajaira Owens Loflin Elementary Asheboro

City 4.60% 2.80%

Teresa Rose Kernersville Elementary Winston

Salem Forsyth 7.60% 3.20%

Christopher Scott Dudley High School Guilford -3.10% 14.60%

Michelle Varoutsos Old Town Elementary Winston


Ashley Westmoreland Hillcrest Elementary Alamance-

Burlington 7.10% 10.70%


March 2014




Total Change in

Percentages

English I/ Reading


Stephanie Norris Clarkton School of

Discovery Bladen County -5.70% -2.20%

Jimmy Price South Columbus High

School Columbus County 3.90% 9.70%

Rachel Smith Acme-Delco

Elementary Columbus County -4.20% -4.70%

Chad Barbour Elizabeth Cashwell

Elementary Cumberland County 6.30% 10.70%

Corine Warren Brentwood

Elementary Cumberland County 8.10% 13.90%

Grisel Cuadrado-

Gabot Highland Elementary Harnett County 2.10% 4.70%

Kimberly Davis Lillington-Shawtown

Elementary Harnett County 2.70% -5.90%

Catherine Jones South Harnett

Elementary Harnett County 6.50% 7.20%

Chris Pearson Western Harnett High

School Harnett County 8.60% 2.10%

Tonja McGill Sandy Grove Middle Hoke County N/A N/A

Angela Colvin Tramway Elementary Lee County -6.90% -5.00%

Crystal Colwell Lee County High

School Lee County -12.40% -9.40%

Wendy Perrell B. T. Bullock

Elementary Lee County 3.50% 5.70%

Christopher Jonassen West Middle Montgomery County 4.60% 7.30%

Julia Brown New Century Middle Moore County -1.50% -0.70%

Clarkie Hussey Sandhills Farm Life

Elementary Moore County 0.60% 4.70%

Shaun Krencicki Union Pines High

School Moore County 7.70% 20.40%

Jennifer Wiley Elise Middle Moore County 4.10% -0.50%

Regina Hyde Peterson Elementary Robeson County 0.00% -1.20%

Kristi Maultsby Tabor City Elementary Columbus County -1.20% 0.00%

Note: Sandy Grove Middle opened in 2013-14.


March 2014



School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Roanoke Rapids


Not Met

(11 of 15 Targets Met) 35.72% 847

SW Edgecombe


Not Met

(12 of 17 Targets Met) 43.85% 931

Bertie High School 75.20% 78.80% School of Progress Met 13 of 13 Targets 53.62% 666

Bertie Middle


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 75.95% 658

Chaloner Middle


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 44.87% 578

Roanoke Valley

Early College 64.50% 87.10% No Recognition Met 9 of 9 Targets 44.12% 64

G.C. Hawley


Wilton Elementary 77.30% 92.40% School of


Youngsville

Elementary 79.20% 90.30%

School of


East End

Elementary 52.30% 70.90% Priority School Met 13 of 13 Targets 89.80% 295

Hertford County


Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 66.80% 451

Southeast Halifax

High School 36.50% 20.70% Priority School

Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 77.93% 541

Tarboro High


Windsor

Elementary 50.90% 74.80% School of Progress

Not Met

(12 of 13 Targets Met) 80.42% 429

South Creek


West Bertie

Elementary 56.10% 76.00% School of Progress Met 13 of 13 Targets 89.41% 375

Manning


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 44.88% 667

Mary Potter Middle


Bearfield Primary 52.30% 63.80% Priority School Not Met

(12 of 15 Targets Met) 77.63% 760

Warren New Tech

High School 77.40% 58.60% No Recognition Met 5 of 5 Targets 56.56% 168

Note: South Creek Middle School was called Roanoke Middle School in 2009-10.


March 2014



School of


Algebra

I/ Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students School

Size

Roanoke Rapids


Not Met

(11 of 17 Targets Met) 43.28% 830

SW Edgecombe


Not Met

(12 of 17 Targets Met) 51.86% 914

Bertie High School 53.80% 59.70% No Recognition Met 13 of 13 Targets 76.80% 565

Bertie Middle


Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 71.10% 639

Chaloner Middle


Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 45.97% 646

Roanoke Valley

Early College 70.20% 87.70%

School of


G.C. Hawley

Middle School 73.60% 87.30%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(24 of 25 Targets Met) 34.07% 675


Distinction

Not Met

(13 of 17 Targets Met) 40.23% 627

Youngsville


School of


East End

Elementary 52.80% 65.30% Priority School

Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 92.23% 288

Hertford County


Not Met

(12 of 21 Targets Met) 73.95% 426

Southeast Halifax

High School 40.00% 6.30% Low Performing

Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 87.71% 493

Tarboro High


Not Met

(12 of 16 Targets Met) 58.86% 663

Windsor


Not Met

(9 of 15 Targets Met) 84.62% 408

South Creek


Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 64.27% 390

West Bertie


Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 91.78% 383

Manning


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 47.27% 660

Mary Potter Middle


Not Met

(12 of 21 Targets Met) 56.91% 434

Bearfield Primary 52.60% 75.30% School of Progress Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 82.25% 758

Warren New Tech


Not Met

(4 of 5 Targets Met) 62.94% 216


March 2014



School of


Algebra

I/ Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students School

Size

Roanoke Rapids

High School 85.30% 63.30% School of Progress Met 16 of 16 Targets 45.57% 827

SW Edgecombe


Not Met

(14 of 20 Targets Met) 52.41% 852

Bertie High School 48.80% 52.60% Priority School Not Met

(14 of 15 Targets Met) 85.48% 554

Bertie Middle


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 84.16% 614

Chaloner Middle


Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 51.44% 720

Roanoke Valley

Early College 77.50% 92.50%

School of


G.C. Hawley Middle


Not Met

(20 of 25 Targets Met) 39.76% 656



Youngsville


School of


East End Elementary 61.30% 54.20% Priority School Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 92.68% 295

Hertford County


Not Met

(11 of 21 Targets Met) 81.56% 448

Southeast Halifax


Not Met

(12 of 15 Targets Met) 83.98% 436

Tarboro High


Windsor Elementary 50.00% 65.40% Priority School Not Met

(11 of 17 Targets Met) 88.97% 422

South Creek Middle


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 67.61% 386

West Bertie


Manning


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 52.43% 653

Mary Potter Middle


Not Met

(16 of 19 Targets Met) 62.90% 431

Bearfield Primary 53.20% 73.40% School of Progress Not Met

(8 of 13 Target Met) 86.81% 728

Warren New Tech



March 2014



School of


Algebra I/ Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students School

Size

North Asheboro

Middle 56.90% 72.50% School of Progress

Not Met

(26 Of 27 Targets Met) 48.94% 456

High Point

Central High

School

69.90% 52.00% School of Progress Met 21 Of 21 Targets 60.57% 1287

Hanes Magnet

Middle 83.90% 87.70%

School of

Distinction Met 33 Of 33 Targets 38.37% 860

Wiley Middle


Not Met

(24 Of 29 Targets Met) 71.85% 549

Allen Middle


Not Met

(24 Of 29 Targets Met) 76.41% 660

Cone Elementary 51.50% 64.20% Priority School Not Met

(13 Of 17 Targets Met) 23.50% 420

Graham Middle


Not Met

(27 Of 29 Targets Met) 71.30% 628

Hairston Middle


Not Met

(24 Of 25 Targets Met) 91.06% 544

Montlieu

Elementary 46.30% 71.20% Priority School Met 13 Of 13 Targets 81.10% 418

Peeler Open


Not Met

(16 Of 17 Targets Met) 48.96% 348

Haw River


Hunter


Hall-Woodward

Elementary 53.30% 81.70% School of Progress Met 21 Of 21 Targets 95.97% 771

Northeast

Guilford High

School


(16 Of 17 Targets Met) 47.99% 1122

Welborn Middle


Not Met

(20 Of 21 Targets Met) 72.41% 543

Walkertown


Not Met

(20 Of 21 Targets Met) 56.16% 594

Kiser Middle


Not Met

(26 Of 29 Targets Met) 54.11% 758

Loflin


Kernersville


Dudley High


Not Met

(10 Of 17 Targets Met) 68.23% 1493

Old Town


Hillcrest


Not Met

(26 Of 27 Targets Met) 67.50% 582


March 2014



School of


Algebra I/ Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students School

Size

North Asheboro

Middle 54.70% 74.10%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(20 of 29 Targets Met) 69.89% 503

High Point Central


School of

Progress

Not Met

(15 of 23 Targets Met) 63.74% 1294

Hanes Magnet

Middle 83.90% 87.50%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(30 of 37 Targets Met) 28.94% 1063

Wiley Middle

School 57.30% 65.00%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(19 of 29 Targets Met) 73.78% 489

Allen Middle

School 57.40% 68.90%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(21 of 29 Targets Met) 78.35% 686

Cone Elementary 46.90% 62.20% Priority School Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 94.41% 395

Graham Middle

School 56.90% 74.60%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(17 of 29 Targets Met) 76.62% 677

Hairston Middle


Not Met

(14 of 25 Targets Met) 90.03% 571

Montlieu


Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 88.44% 406

Peeler Open


School of

Progress Met 17 of 17 Targets 57.76% 357

Haw River


Not Met

(13 of 23 Targets Met) 87.61% 433

Hunter Elementary 59.10% 86.70% School of

Progress

Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 95.75% 424

Hall-Woodward


School of

Progress

Not Met

(11 of 21 Targets Met) 96.96% 782

Northeast Guilford


Not Met

(3 of 17 Targets Met) 52.51% 1097

Welborn Middle

School 55.80% 72.50%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(17 of 25 Targets Met) 79.38% 522

Walkertown Middle

School 65.50% 82.40%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(19 of 25 Targets Met) 58.19% 608

Kiser Middle

School 65.00% 80.40%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(21 of 29 Targets Met) 58.81% 824

Loflin Elementary 58.30% 79.80% School of

Progress

Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 78.40% 364

Kernersville


School of

Progress

Not Met

(20 of 29 Targets Met) 62.85% 871

Dudley High


Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 75.71% 1449

Old Town

Elementary 60.10% 79.90% No Recognition

Not Met

(14 of 21 Targets Met) 94.88% 614

Hillcrest


School of

Progress

Not Met

(17 of 25 Targets Met) 76.78% 530


March 2014



School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

North Asheboro

Middle 52.10% 67.20% Priority School

Not Met

(16 of 29 Targets Met) 77.19% 534

High Point Central


School of

Progress

Not Met

(21 of 23 Targets Met) 63.11% 1367

Hanes Magnet

Middle 82.80% 85.40%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(33 of 77 Targets Met) 28.48% 1078

Wiley Middle


Not Met

(19 of 29 Targets Met) 77.05% 462

Allen Middle

School 53.90% 71.40%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(20 of 29 Targets Met) 81.65% 692

Cone Elementary 39.30% 54.50% Low Performing Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 94.46% 402

Graham Middle

School 55.30% 76.40%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(20 of 29 Targets Met) 76.63% 644

Hairston Middle


Not Met

(15 of 25 Targets Met) 90.07% 626

Montlieu


School of


Peeler Open


School of

Progress

Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets Met) 56.70% 376

Haw River


Not Met

(14 of 23 Targets Met) 90.53% 467

Hunter Elementary 54.80% 87.50% School of

Progress

Not Met 18 of 21

Targets Met) 93.27% 438

Hall-Woodward


Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 96.88% 762

Northeast Guilford


Not Met

(21 of 23 Targets Met) 52.98% 1060

Welborn Middle

School 53.80% 77.40%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(20 of 25 Targets Met) 79.54% 508

Walkertown Middle


Not Met

(14 of 25 Targets Met) 58.95% 686

Kiser Middle


Not Met

(22 of 27 Targets Met) 58.10% 947

Loflin Elementary 59.20% 81.50% School of

Progress

Not Met

(13 of 17 Targets Met) 82.13% 343

Kernersville


School of


Dudley High

School 64.40% 52.80%

School of


Old Town


Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets Met) 97.72% 591

Hillcrest


School of



March 2014



School of Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Clarkton School of

Discovery 75.40% 81.90% School of Progress

Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 55.23% 324

South Columbus


School of

Distinction

Not Met

(9 of 17 Targets Met) 49.36% 690

Acme-Delco


Elizabeth Cashwell


Brentwood


Not Met

(12 of 15 Targets Met) 76.94% 524

Highland Elementary 67.30% 72.80% No Recognition Not Met

(17 of 19 Targets Met) 35.96% 876

Lillington-Shawtown


Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 67.53% 598

South Harnett


Not Met

(19 of 23 Targets Met) 59.00% 444

Western Harnett


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 48.11% 1209

Sandy Grove Middle

School N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Tramway


School of


Lee County High


B. T. Bullock


Not Met

(25 of 27 Targets Met) 67.94% 645

West Middle School 57.50% 70.10% School of Progress Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets Met) 58.74% 463

New Century Middle 79.30% 88.00% School of

Distinction

Not Met

(24 of 25 Targets Met) 40.00% 905

Sandhills Farm Life


School of


Union Pines High

School 83.90% 69.10%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(12 of 15 Targets Met) 31.00% 1174


Peterson Elementary 48.80% 69.60% Priority School Not Met

(19 of 23 Targets Met) 85.44% 522

Tabor City



March 2014



School of Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Clarkton School of

Discovery 74.00% 77.10% No Recognition

Not Met

(13 of 17 Targets Met) 61.61% 349

South Columbus


Not Met

(12 of 15 Targets Met) 58.43% 743

Acme-Delco


Not Met

(11 of 17 Targets Met) 73.85% 357

Elizabeth Cashwell


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 79.14% 715

Brentwood


Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 80.62% 516

Highland Elementary 66.50% 70.00% No Recognition Not Met

(15 of 21 Targets Met) 38.69% 874

Lillington-Shawtown


Not Met

(11 of 21 Targets Met) 69.44% 619

South Harnett


Not Met

(17 of 25 Targets Met) 64.81% 505

Western Harnett


Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 50.26% 1217

Sandy Grove Middle


Tramway


School of

Distinction Met17 of 17 Targets 35.72% 691

Lee County High


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 51.24% 1341

B. T. Bullock


Not Met

(24 of 25 Targets Met) 69.92% 630


(13 of 21 Targets Met) 67.17% 466


Distinction

Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets Met) 39.96% 533

Sandhills Farm Life


School of

Distinction

Not Met

(11 of 13 Targets Met) 24.29% 534

Union Pines High

School 88.50% 77.80%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(12 of 17 Targets Met) 35.05% 1181

Elise Middle School 65.20% 87.30% School of Progress Not Met

(15 of 21 Targets Met) 82.32% 210

Peterson Elementary 55.50% 72.30% No Recognition Not Met

(18 of 25 Targets Met) 91.08% 529

Tabor City


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 77.11% 497

Note: Sandy Grove Middle opened in 2013-14.


March 2014



School of Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Math-


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Clarkton School of

Discovery 69.70% 79.70% No Recognition

Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 54.49% 357

South Columbus


Honor School of


Acme-Delco


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets 80.75% 360

Elizabeth Cashwell


Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 81.17% 679

Brentwood


Highland Elementary 69.40% 77.50% School of Progress Not Met

(22 of 23 Targets Met) 39.22% 871

Lillington-Shawtown


Not Met

(12 of 21 Targets Met) 69.29% 598

South Harnett


Not Met

(19 of 25 Targets Met) 59.26% 526

Western Harnett


Not Met

(24 of 25 Targets Met) 48.24% 1194

Sandy Grove Middle


Tramway

Elementary 80.20% 89.80% No Recognition Met 21 of 21 Targets 39.16% 692

Lee County High


Not Met

(21 of 25 Targets Met) 55.20% 1361

B. T. Bullock


Not Met

(24 of 25 Targets Met) 73.78% 643


(21 of 25 Targets Met) 66.81% 497



Sandhills Farm Life


School of


Union Pines High


Elise Middle School 68.90% 84.40% School of Progress Met 21 of 21Targets 77.56% 209

Peterson Elementary 48.80% 68.40% Priority School Not Met

(17 of 25 Targets Met) 92.82% 603

Tabor City


Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets Met) 79.30% 452


March 2014


Appendix H. Job Placements for RLA Cohort 1 and Cohort 2

Table H1. NELA Cohort 1 Job Placements

Name School of Hire LEA Position

Mark Barfield Northampton County High Northampton Assistant Principal

Annabel Bello Aurelian Springs

Elementary Halifax Special Needs Teacher

Melissa Harris

Richardson

Aurelian Springs

Elementary Halifax Assistant Principal

Ryan Hurley Northside Elementary Warren Transformation

Coordinator

Demetra Lassiter Central Elementary Northampton Teacher Grade 4

Mark Long Northampton County High Northampton Assistant Principal

Douglas Miller N/A Roanoke Rapids Director of

Transportation RR

Carol Mizelle N/A Bertie Instructional Coach

Sean Murphy William R. Davie Middle Halifax Teacher Grade 7

Tracey Neal Warren County High Warren Assistant Principal

Erin Swanson Northwest Halifax High Halifax Assistant Principal

Gonzalo Pitpit Ahoskie Elementary Hertford Teacher Grade 5

Kim Scott Ahoskie Elementary Hertford Assistant Principal

Ebony Spivey Jason N/A Warren SIG Director

Mae Rose Hertford County High Hertford Assistant Principal

Erica Staine Shoulders Franklinton High Franklin Assistant Principal

Hope Walker William R. Davie Middle Halifax Teacher Grade 7

Yolanda Wiggins M.B. Hubbard Elementary Nash/RM Assistant Principal

Cecilya Williams Central Elementary Northampton Teacher Grade 2

Christina Williams Inborden Elementary Halifax Assistant Principal

Shelley Williams Chaloner Middle Roanoke Rapids Assistant Principal

Notes:

Sean Murphy was Interim AP at SE Halifax High from October 2012 to January 2013. He started at William R.

Davie Middle in January 2013.

Hope Walker not currently employed in education field. She worked at William R Davie Middle from August 2012

to February 2013.

N/A=5 or fewer students in a category and results are not shown.


March 2014


Table H2. PTLA Cohort 1 Job Placements


Jamyle Acevedo (“Kathy”) Union Hill Elementary Guilford ESL Teacher

Adrea Alexander High Point Central High Guilford Assistant Principal

Michelle Breen Forest Park Elementary Winston-Salem

Forsyth

Learning Team

Facilitator

Thomas Brookshire

(“Jeff”) Hanes Middle

Winston-Salem

Forsyth Assistant Principal

Jason Cayton (“Todd”) Eastern Middle Guilford Assistant Principal

Ronnie Christian WSFCS Career Center Winston-Salem


Amy Day Reedy Fork Elementary Guilford Curriculum

Facilitator

Melvin Diggs Ray Street Academy Alamance-Burlington Assistant Principal

Cassandra Dobson Konnoak Elementary Winston-Salem


Scarlet Evans Hall-Woodward

Elementary

Winston-Salem


Keisha Gabriel Philo-Hill Magnet

Academy

Winston-Salem


Shadonna Gunn Grove Park Elementary Alamance-Burlington

Principal

Jusmar Maness Southern Middle Guilford Assistant Principal

Charnelle Newkirk Oak Hill Elementary Guilford Assistant Principal

Ian Olsen Wiley Middle Winston-Salem


Stephanie Rakes Ragsdale High Guilford Curriculum

Facilitator/Reading

Chameeka Smith Graham High Alamance-Burlington Assistant Principal

Ashley Triplett Aycock Middle Guilford Assistant Principal

Weaver Walden Ferndale Middle Guilford Assistant Principal

Cynthia White Jones Elementary Guilford Assistant Principal

Hollis Wroblewski

(“Holly”) Haw River Elementary Alamance-Burlington Assistant Principal

Notes:

Cassandra Dobson worked as an Instructional Coach at Speas Elementary from August 2012 – April 2013. She

started at Konnoak in April 2013.

Scarlet Evans worked as a Curriculum Coordinator at North Hills Elementary from August 2012 – December 2012. She

started at Hall-Woodward in January 2013.

Shadonna Gunn worked as the Assistant Principal at Eastlawn Elementary from August 2012 – December 2012. She

started at Grove Park in January 2013.


March 2014


Table H3. SLA Cohort 1 Job Placements


Angela D. Wright Boone Trail Elementary Harnett Assistant Principal

Robert Forrest Breyer Pinecrest High Moore Assistant Principal

Dante Pool Pinecrest High Moore Assistant Principal

Jennifer C. Purvis North Moore High Moore Principal

Maresa Dutton Phillips Lilesville Elementary Anson Principal

Lawrence L. Smalls II E.E. Smith High Cumberland Assistant Principal

LamonicaTillery Alderman Road Elementary Cumberland Assistant Principal

Evan L. Roush Cumberland Mills Elementary Cumberland Assistant Principal

Adam Michael Mowery Angier Elementary Harnett Assistant Principal

Amy Lynn Parsons Green Ridge Elementary Montgomery Assistant Principal

David Renninger Sandy Grove Elementary Hoke Assistant Principal

Shelly F. Cullipher Edgewood Elementary Whiteville City Principal

Dianna W. Bellamy Tabor City Middle Columbus Principal

Camilla Price House N/A Harnett Director Grades 3-5

Penny McNeill-Lind J.R. Ingram Elementary Lee Assistant Principal

Elizabeth Faulk Bridges SanLee Middle Lee Assistant Principal

Cynthia Ann Lewis Red Springs High Robeson Assistant Principal

Tara Dee Bullard Piney Grove Elementary Robeson Assistant Principal

Joyce Morgan McRae Richmond County Senior High Richmond Assistant Principal

Barbara Denise Adams I. Ellis Johnson Elementary Scotland Assistant Principal

Notes:

Jennifer Purvis worked as Principal of Vass Lakeview Elementary from June 2012 – October 2012.

She started at North Moore High in November 2012.

Shelly Cullipher worked as Principal at North Whiteville Academy from July 2012 – January 2013.

She started at Edgewood Elementary in January 2013.



March 2014


Table H4. NELA Cohort 2 Job Placements


Amy Pearce Stocks Elementary Edgecombe Assistant Principal

Vernedette Garland Nashville Elementary Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Kelly Shelton Mudd Nash Central Middle Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Tonya Little Riverside Middle Martin Assistant Principal

Kendrick Alston D.S. Johnson Elementary Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Hugh Scott Southern Nash High Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Teicher Patterson Everetts Elementary Halifax Assistant Principal

Lisa Pennington Long Mill Elementary Franklin Teacher Grade 3

Jackson Olsen Northern Vance High Vance Assistant Principal

Kimberly Allison Wilton Elementary Granville Assistant Principal

Jenifer Lewis Benvenue Elementary Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Krista Fasioli Williford Elementary Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Tim Mudd Southern Nash High Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Jennifer Berry Red Oak Elementary Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Jennifer Berry Swift Creek Elementary Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Zachary Marks Nash Central Middle Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Erin Robbins Tar River Elementary Granville Assistant Principal

Angela Strother N/A Edgecombe AIG Facilitator

Larry Hodgkins South Creek Middle Martin Assistant Principal

Darren Gemzik South Edgecombe

Middle Edgecombe

Teacher Grade 6

SS/Science

Elizabeth Payne

Moran

JF Webb High School of

Health and Life Sciences Granville Assistant Principal

Lauren Greenhill Manning Elementary Roanoke Rapids Assistant Principal

Notes:


Jennifer Berry is Assistant Principal of Red Oak Elementary and Swift Creek Elementary simultaneously.


March 2014


Table H5. PTLA Cohort 2 Job Placements


Kristen Gravely Graham High Alamance-Burlington Assistant Principal

Thomas Kazimir Graham High Alamance-Burlington Assistant Principal

Dana Roseboro Newlin Elementary Alamance-Burlington Media Specialist

Ben Cawley N/A Guilford County Mission Possible

Specialist

Kevin Conaway Southeast Guilford

Middle Guilford County Assistant Principal

Vernon Hall Ferndale Middle Guilford County Assistant Principal

Darrell Harris Eastern Guilford Middle Guilford County Assistant Principal

Noel Keener Northeast Guilford High Guilford County Assistant Principal

Greta Martin Jamestown Middle Guilford County Teacher Grade 7

Janiese

McKenzie Northern Guilford High Guilford County Assistant Principal

Rashad Slade N/A Guilford County Director of Instructional

Technology

Chelsea Smith Wiley Elementary Guilford County Assistant Principal

Toks Wall Rankin Elementary Guilford County Teacher Grade 5

Kimberly Ashby Walkertown High Winston-

Salem/Forsyth Assistant Principal

Kathy Bryant Bolton Elementary Winston-


Jonathan

Hegedus Kernersville Elementary

Winston-


Larnitha Hunter Ibraham Elementary Winston-


Nicole Kurtz West Forsyth High Winston-

Salem/Forsyth Teacher English III

Susan T Miller Griffith Elementary Winston-

Salem/Forsyth

Learning Team

Facilitator

Colin Tribby The Downtown School Winston-


Notes:


Nicole Kurtz worked as an English I Honors Teacher at Atkins Academic/Tech High from August 2013 – December

2013. She started at West Forsyth High in January 2014.


March 2014


Table H6. SLA Cohort 2 Job Placements


Marci Houseman Southern Pines Primary Moore Principal

Pam Lewis Washington Park Elementary Scotland Principal

Leslie Bailey Hawk Eye Elementary Hoke Assistant Principal

Anthony Barton Purnell Swett High Robeson Assistant Principal

Jennifer Brach L.J. Bell Elementary Richmond Assistant Principal

Maxine Brown Hamlet Middle Richmond Assistant Principal

Melissa Brewer East Lee Middle Lee Assistant Principal

Kelly Bullard Tabor City Middle Columbus Lead Teacher

Elizabeth Cole Elizabethtown Middle Bladen Assistant Principal

Kisha Derr SanLee Middle Lee Assistant Principal

Katrina Fox Southern Pines Elementary Moore Assistant Principal

Lisa Hain J. Glenn Edwards Elementary Lee Assistant Principal

Andrew Keller Lee County High Lee Assistant Principal

Matt McLean J.R. Ingram Elementary Lee Assistant Principal

Tracy Metcalf Union Pines High Moore Assistant Principal

Matt Moore Southern Middle Moore Assistant Principal

Mike Picciano Douglas Byrd Middle Cumberland Assistant Principal

Christy Sharpe Broadway Elementary Lee Teacher

Jennifer Spivey Boone Trail Elementary Harnett Assistant Principal

Joy Smart Scotland High Scotland Assistant Principal

Kristy West N/A Robeson Instructional Specialist

Note: N/A=5 or fewer students in a category and results are not shown.


March 2014


Appendix I. Summary Statistics for Cohort 1’s and Cohort 2’s Job Placement Schools

Table I1. NELA Cohort 1 Job Placement Schools*

Counties/Schools

per Hire 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13^ Achievement Comparisons

Low Performing 5 4 4 1

Change from

2008-09 to

2011-12

Change from 2011-

12 to

2012-13^

Priority Schools 8 4 3 7

Schools of Progress 5 8 9 6

No Recognition 0 1 1 0

School of Distinction 0 1 1 4

Bertie = 1

Franklin = 1

Halifax = 6

Hertford = 3

Nash = 1

Northampton = 4

Roanoke Rapids = 2

Warren = 3

Average %

Students

F/RL = 75%

Average School

Size = 484

8/18 met AYP

Reading/English

I Range =

29.3%-75.7%

Average = 50%

Mathematics/Alg

ebra I Range =

18.1%-80.9%

Average =

53.2%

% students F/RL

Range = 38.9%-

93.9%

Average =

70.9%

School size

Range = 178-900

Average = 483.2

3/18 met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 24.5%-

82.5%

Average = 56.5%

Mathematics/Alge

bra I Range =

29.4%-86.6%

Average = 62.5%

% students F/RL

Range = 38.9%-

92.8%

Average = 74.2%

School size Range

= 285-812

Average = 491.2

3/18 met AYP

Reading/English

I Range =

17.4%-80.4%

Average = 55.9%

Mathematics/Alg

ebra I Range =

28.5%-87.7%

Average = 62.1%

% students F/RL

Range = 41.3%-

97.3%

Average = 77%

School size

Range = 291-842

Average = 482.7

3/18 met 100%

AMO

Reading/English

I Range =

28.4%-84.5%

Average = 55.9%

Mathematics/Alg

ebra I Range =

33.7%-84%

Average = 66.4%

% students F/RL

Range = 46.7%-

93.4%

Average = 77.9%

School size

Range = 290-922

Average = 480.3

X/18 met X%

AYP or AMO

Reading/English I

Range = XX%-

XX%

Average = XX%

Mathematics/Alge

bra I Range =

XX%-XX%

Average = XX%

% students F/RL Range = XX%-

XX%

Average = XX%

School size Range

= XX%-XX%

Average = XX%

Reading/English I

Average:

+5.9% with Range:

-12.9% to +24%

Average between

years: +2%

Mathematics/

Algebra I

Average: +13.2%

with Range:

-8.3% to +39.6%

Average between years: +4.4%

Reading/English I

Change between

years: XX%

Range:

XX% to XX%

Mathematics/

Algebra I

Change between

years:

XX%

Range: XX% to XX%

* Three fellows have district-level positions, so school-specific data cannot be recorded. Therefore, this school-level data reflects 18 fellows and their job placements.

^Data not available at time of report.


March 2014


Table I2. PTLA Cohort 1 Job Placement Schools*

Counties/Schools



Change from 2008-

09 to

2011-12

Change from 2011-

12 to

2012-13^





Alamance-

Burlington = 4

Guilford = 10

Winston-Salem/

Forsyth = 7

Average %

Students

F/RL = 71.4%

Average School

Size = 670

12/20 met AYP

Reading/English

I Range =

17.1%-76.3%

Average =

50.7%

Mathematics/Algebra I Range =

25.4%-85.1%

Average =

62.4%

% students F/RL

Range = 32.7%-

100%

Average =

67.7%

School size

Range = 70-1469

Average = 651.8

8/19 met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 31.2%-

83.9%

Average = 54.7%

Mathematics/Alge

bra I Range =

26.8%-87.7%

Average = 66.2%

% students F/RL

Range = 38.4%-

96%

Average = 70%

School size Range

= 64-1386

Average = 659.2

2/20 met AYP

Reading/English

I Range =

25.5%-83.9%

Average = 56.3%

Mathematics/Alg

ebra I Range =

34%-87.5%

Average = 70.1%

% students F/RL

Range = 28.9%-

97.7%

Average = 73.1%

School size

Range = 72-1365

Average = 677.3

2/20 met AMO

Reading/English

I Range =

19.2%-82.8%

Average = 55.3%

Mathematics/Alg

ebra I Range =

28%-86.8%

Average = 68.9%

% students F/RL

Range = 28.5%-

98.6%

Average = 74.7%

School size

Range = 112-

1367

Average = 692.3

X/20 met X%

AYP or AMO

Reading/English

I Range =

XX%-XX%

Average =

XX%


XX%-XX%

Average =

XX%

% students F/RL

Range = XX%-

XX%

Average =

XX%

School size

Range

= XX%-XX%

Average =

XX%

Reading/English I

Average: +4.6 %

with Range:

-7.5% to +25.6%

Average between

years: +1.5%

Mathematics/

Algebra I Average:

+6.6% with Range:

-7.6% to +54.1%


Reading/English I

Change between years: XX%

Range: XX% to XX%

Mathematics/

Algebra I

Change between

years: XX%

Range:

XX% to XX%

* One school did not have a designation for 2008-09 and 2009-10 or AYP for 2009-10. Another school does not administer state tests. This school-level data reflects 20

fellows and their job placements.



March 2014


Table I3. SLA Cohort 1 Job Placement Schools*

Counties/Schools



Change from

2008-09 to

2011-12

Change from

2011-12 to

2012-13^





Anson = 1

Columbus = 1

Cumberland = 3

Harnett = 3

Hoke = 1

Lee = 2

Montgomery = 1

Moore = 3

Richmond = 1

Robeson = 2

Scotland = 1

Whiteville City = 1

Average %

Students

F/RL = 64.6%

Average School

Size = 766.4

10/19 met AYP

Reading/English

I Range =

49.5%-75.8%

Average =

61.9%

Mathematics/

Algebra I Range

= 9.5%-85.4%

Average =

60.5%

% students F/RL

Range = 27.2%-

94.9%

Average =

60.7%

School size

Range = 246-

1949

Average = 764.9

6/19 met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 53.3%-

85.5%

Average = 65.6%

Mathematics/ Algebra I Range

= 35.8%-85.2%

Average = 73.6%

% students F/RL

Range = 28%-

93%

Average = 63.9%

School size

Range = 233-

1989

Average = 766.2

2/19 met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 49.1%-

89.7%

Average = 65.9%


= 30.4%-87.8%

Average = 74.2%

% students F/RL

Range = 31.2%-

95.8%

Average = 66.3%

School size

Range = 213-

2029

Average = 764.1

2/19 met AMO

Reading/English I

Range = 41%-

89.6%

Average = 65.9%


= 41.3%-90.3%

Average = 76.3%

% students F/RL

Range = 33.8%-

94.6%

Average = 67.4%

School size

Range = 224-

1982

Average = 770.4

X/19 met X%

AYP or AMO

Reading/English

I Range =

XX%-XX%

Average =

XX%

Mathematics/

Algebra I Range

= XX%-XX%

Average =

XX%

% students F/RL

Range = XX%-

XX%

Average =

XX%

School size

Range = XX%-

XX%

Average =

XX%

Reading/

English I

Average: +4%

with Range:

-16.1% to +14.6%


Mathematics/

Algebra I

Average: +15.8% with Range:

-11.3% to

+70.6%


Reading/

English I


Range: XX% to XX%

Mathematics/

Algebra I

Change between

years: XX%

Range: XX% to XX%

* One fellow has a district-level position, so school-specific data cannot be recorded. Therefore, this school-level data reflects 19 fellows and their job placements.



March 2014


Table I4. NELA Cohort 2 Job Placement Schools*

Counties/Schools

per Hire 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13^ 2013-14^ Achievement Comparisons

Low Performing 0 1 2

Change from

2009-10 to

2012-13^

Change from

2012-13 to

2013-14^

Priority Schools 6 2 1

Schools of Progress 9 9 7

No Recognition 1 3 6

Schools of Distinction 4 4 4

Honor Sch .of Excel. 0 1 1

Edgecombe = 2

Franklin = 1

Granville = 3

Halifax = 1

Martin = 2

Nash = 10

RRGSD = 1

Vance = 1

Average %

Students

F/RL = %

Average School

Size =

6/20 met AYP

Reading/English I Range =

37.4%-85.1%

Average =

63.4%

Mathematics/Al

gebra I Range =

51.4%-92.9%

Average =

74.4%

% students F/RL

Range = 31.2%-

93.8%

Average =

57.5%

School size

Range = 256-

1184

Average =

603.9

2/20 met AYP

Reading/English I Range = 39.7%-

87.5%

Average = 63.9%


46.2%-95%

Average = 76.1%

% students F/RL

Range = 31.7%-

94.1%

Average = 61.3%

School size

Range = 289-1231

Average = 607.4

9/21 met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 37.7%-

91.4%

Average = 66%

Mathematics/Alge

bra I Range =

48%-94.1%

Average = 75.1%

% students F/RL

Range = 30.5%-

99.4%

Average = 60.8%

School size

Range = 289-1215

Average = 572.2

X/21 met AMO

Reading/English

I Range = XX%-

XX%

Average = XX%

Mathematics/Alg

ebra I Range =

XX%-XX%

Average = XX%


XX%

Average = XX%

School size

Range = XX%-

XX%

Average = XX%

X/21 met X%

AYP or AMO

Reading/English I Range =

XX%-XX%

Average =

XX%

Mathematics/Al

gebra I Range =

XX%-XX%

Average =

XX%

% students F/RL

Range = XX%-

XX%

Average =

XX%

School size

Range = XX%-

XX%

Average =

XX%

Reading/

English I

Average: XX%

with Range:

XX% to XX%

Average between years: XX%

Mathematics/

Algebra I

Average: XX%

with Range:

XX% to XX%

Average between

years: XX%

Reading/

English I


Range: XX% to XX%

Mathematics/

Algebra I

Change between years:

XX%

Range:

XX% to XX%

* One fellow has a district-level position, so school-specific data cannot be recorded. Therefore, this school-level data reflects 21 fellows and their job placements. One

school did not open until 2011-12.



March 2014


Table I5. PTLA Cohort 2 Job Placement Schools*

Counties/Schools

per Hire 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13^ 2013-14^ Achievement Comparisons


Change from

2009-10 to

2012-13^

Change from

2012-13 to

2013-14^





Honor Sch. of Excel. 2 2 3

Alamance-

Burlington = 3

Guilford = 8

Winston-Salem/

Forsyth = 7

Average %

Students

F/RL = %

Average School

Size =

6/17 met AYP

Reading/English

I Range =

25.7%-92.1%

Average =

64.6%

Mathematics/Alg

ebra I Range =

50%-95%

Average =

71.6%

% students F/RL

Range = 6.3%-

98.9%

Average =

58.9%

School size

Range = 244-

1950

Average = 809.8

4/17 met AYP

Reading/English

I Range = 38.3%-

95%

Average = 66.4%

Mathematics/Alg

ebra I Range =

51.9%-94.3%

Average = 74.3%

% students F/RL

Range = 8.5%-

98%

Average = 61.8%

School size

Range = 238-

1912

Average = 820.1

9/18 met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 42.4%-

94.1%

Average = 67.8%

Mathematics/Alge

bra I Range =

47.4%-95%

Average = 74.3%

% students F/RL

Range = 9.7%-

96.6%

Average = 61.7%

School size

Range = 222-1953

Average = 804.2

X/18 met AMO

Reading/English

I Range = XX%-

XX%

Average = XX%

Mathematics/Alg

ebra I Range =

XX%-XX%

Average = XX%


XX%

Average = XX%

School size

Range = XX%-

XX%

Average = XX%

X/18 met X%

AYP or AMO

Reading/English

I Range =

XX%-XX%

Average =

XX%

Mathematics/Al

gebra I Range =

XX%-XX%

Average =

XX%


XX%

Average =

XX%

School size

Range = XX%-

XX%

Average =

XX%

Reading/English

I

Average: XX%

with Range:

XX% to XX%


Mathematics/

Algebra I

Average: XX%

with Range:

XX% to XX%

Average between

years: XX%

Reading/English

I


Range: XX% to XX%

Mathematics/

Algebra I

Change between years:

XX%

Range:

XX% to XX%

* Two fellows have district-level positions, so school-specific data cannot be recorded. Therefore, this school-level data reflects 18 fellows and their job placements.

One school did not open until 2011-12.



March 2014


Table I6. SLA Cohort 2 Job Placement Schools*

Counties/Schools per

Hire 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13^ 2013-14^ Achievement Comparisons


Change from

2009-10 to

2012-13^

Change from

2012-13 to

2013-14^





Honor Sch. of Excel. 0 0 0

Bladen = 1

Columbus = 1

Cumberland = 1

Harnett = 1

Hoke = 1

Lee = 6

Moore = 4

Richmond = 2

Robeson = 1

Scotland = 2

Average %

Students

F/RL = %

Average School

Size =

7/19 met AYP

Reading/English

I Range =

37.4%-83.9%

Average =

64.3%

Mathematics/Alg

ebra I Range =

58.2%-90.3%

Average =

76.6%

% students F/RL

Range = 31%-

86.5%

Average = 63%

School size

Range = 233-

1619

Average = 678.4

0/19 met AYP

Reading/English

I Range =

41.3%-88.5%

Average = 64.1%

Mathematics/Alg

ebra I Range =

61.2%-91.3%

Average = 76.9%

% students F/RL

Range = 35.1%-

86.7%

Average = 65.2%

School size

Range = 213-

1615

Average = 672.5

4/20 met AYP

Reading/English I

Range = 47.3%-

91.6%

Average = 65.2%

Mathematics/Algeb

ra I Range =

50.9%-90.3%

Average = 72.7%

% students F/RL

Range = 35.6%-

91.6%

Average = 66.6%

School size

Range = 224-1647

Average = 724.1

X/20 met AMO

Reading/English

I Range =

XX%-XX%

Average =

XX%

Mathematics/Al

gebra I Range =

XX%-XX%

Average =

XX%


XX%

Average =

XX%

School size

Range = XX%-

XX%

Average =

XX%

X/20 met X%

AYP or AMO

Reading/English

I Range =

XX%-XX%

Average =

XX%

Mathematics/Al

gebra I Range =

XX%-XX%

Average =

XX%


XX%

Average =

XX%

School size

Range = XX%-

XX%

Average =

XX%

Reading/

English I

Average:

XX%

with Range: XX% to XX%

Average between

years: XX%

Mathematics/

Algebra I

Average:

XX%

with Range: XX% to XX%


Reading/

English I

Change between

years: XX%

Range:

XX% to XX%

Mathematics/

Algebra I

Change between

years:

XX%

Range:

XX% to XX%

* One fellow has a district-level position, so school-specific data cannot be recorded. Therefore, this school-level data reflects 20 fellows and their job placements.

One school is K-2 only, so there is no testing data. One school merged from six learning academies into one high school in 2011-12; since data is incomplete from

learning academies, it is treated as a new school here, as of 2011-12. ^Data not available at time of report.


March 2014


Appendix J. Raw Statistics for Cohort 1’s and Cohort 2’s Job Placement Schools

Table J1. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, NELA, Total Change in Percentages, 2008–2012


Total Change in

Percentages

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Mathematics

Mark Barfield Northampton County

High School * Northampton Assistant Principal 19.00% 35.30%

Annabel Bello Aurelian Springs

Elementary Halifax

Special Needs

Teacher 7.40% 7.20%

Melissa Harris

Richardson

Aurelian Springs

Elementary Halifax Assistant Principal 7.40% 7.20%

Ryan Hurley Northside Elementary Warren Transformation

Coordinator 0.00% -6.60%

DeMetra Lassiter Central Elementary Northampton 4th Grade Teacher

-12.90% -6.10%

Mark Long Northampton County

High School * Northampton Assistant Principal 19.00% 35.30%

Douglas Miller N/A Roanoke Rapids Director of

Transportation RR N/A N/A

Carol Mizelle N/A Bertie Instructional Coach N/A N/A

Sean Murphy William R Davie Middle Halifax 7th Grade Teacher 6.60% 13.90%

Tracey Neal Warren County High

School Warren Assistant Principal 24.00% 35.80%

Erin Swanson Northwest Halifax High

School Halifax Assistant Principal 9.00% 20.40%

Gonzalo Pitpit Ahoskie Elementary Hertford 5th Grade Teacher 3.00% 13.50%

Kim Scott Ahoskie Elementary Hertford Assistant Principal 3.00% 13.50%

Ebony Spivey

Jason N/A Warren SIG Director N/A N/A

Mae Rose Hertford County High

School Hertford Assistant Principal 21.40% 39.60%

Erica Staine

Shoulders Franklinton High School Franklin Assistant Principal 8.80% 28.30%

Hope Walker William R Davie Middle Halifax 7th Grade Teacher 6.60% 13.90%

Yolanda Wiggins M.B. Hubbard

Elementary Nash Assistant Principal -6.20% -2.00%

Cecilya Williams Central Elementary Northampton 2nd

Grade Teacher -12.90% -6.10%

Christina Williams Inborden Elementary Halifax Assistant Principal -0.900% -8.30%

Shelley Williams Chaloner Middle School Roanoke Rapids Assistant Principal 4.70% 3.10%

Note: N/A=5 or fewer students in a category and results not shown. *Did not open until 2011–12; used to be Northampton High School East so that data is used.


March 2014


Table J2. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, PTLA, Total Change in Percentages, 2008–2012

Note: N/A: WSFCS Career Center does not administer state tests.

*Opened in August 2012 as revamped alternative school; data used is from former alternative school, Sellars Gunn

Alternative School.

**School changed names; used to be Philo Middle; data is listed under Philo Middle.

Intern Name School of Hire LEA Position

Total Change in

Percentages

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Mathematics

Jamyle Acevedo

“Kathy” Union Hill Elementary Guilford ESL Teacher -6.30% -7.60%

Adrea Alexander High School Point

Central High School Guilford Assistant Principal 15.70% -4.50%

Michelle Breen Forest Park Elementary Winston-Salem

Forsyth

Learning Team

Facilitator 8.80% 15.70%

Thomas Brookshire

“Jeff” Hanes Middle

Winston-Salem

Forsyth Assistant Principal 6.50% 6.90%

Jason Cayton “Todd” Eastern Middle Guilford Assistant Principal 1.70% 5.00%

Ronnie Christian WSFCS Career Center Winston-Salem

Forsyth Assistant Principal N/A N/A

Amy Day Reedy Fork Elementary Guilford Curriculum

Facilitator -2.50% -3.00%

Melvin Diggs Ray Street Academy* Alamance-

Burlington Assistant Principal 2.10% -6.10%

Cassandra Dobson Konnoak Elementary Winston-Salem

Forsyth Assistant Principal -1.60% 0.20%

Scarlet Evans Hall-Woodward

Elementary

Winston-Salem


Keisha Gabriel Philo-Hill Magnet

Academy**

Winston-Salem


Shadonna Gunn Grove Park Elementary Alamance-

Burlington Principal -7.50% -3.30%

Jusmar Maness Southern Middle Guilford Assistant Principal 6.80% 6.10%

Charnelle Newkirk Oak Hill Elementary Guilford Assistant Principal 25.60% 47.60%

Ian Olsen Wiley Middle Winston-Salem

Forsyth Assistant Principal 2.60% -3.00%

Stephanie Rakes Ragsdale High School Guilford Curriculum

Facilitator/ Reading 13.10% 54.10%

Chameeka Smith Graham High School Alamance-

Burlington Assistant Principal 10.80% 12.30%

Ashley Triplett Aycock Middle Guilford Assistant Principal 6.00% 4.10%

Weaver Walden Ferndale Middle Guilford Assistant Principal 1.10% 0.50%

Cynthia White Jones Elementary Guilford Assistant Principal -5.20% -7.40%

Hollis Wroblewsk

“Holly” Haw River Elementary

Alamance-

Burlington Assistant Principal 4.00% -7.40%


March 2014


Table J3. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, SLA, Total Change in Percentages, 2008–2012


Total Change in

Percentages

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Mathematics

Angela D. Wright Boone Trail

Elementary Harnett Assistant Principal -6.60% -11.30%

Robert Forrest Breyer Pinecrest High

School Moore Assistant Principal 13.80% 70.60%

Dante Pool Pinecrest High

School Moore Assistant Principal 13.80% 70.60%

Jennifer C. Purvis North Moore High

School Moore Principal 12.30% 38.10%

Maresa Dutton

Phillips Lilesville Elementary Anson Principal 4.80% 10.40%

Lawrence Leroy

Smalls II

E.E. Smith High

School Cumberland Assistant Principal 14.20% 39.20%

Lamonica Tillery Alderman Road

Elementary Cumberland Assistant Principal 1.70% 4.70%

Evan L. Roush Cumberland Mills

Elementary Cumberland Assistant Principal 14.60% 14.70%

Adam Michael

Mowery Angier Elementary Harnett Assistant Principal -16.10% -10.80%

Amy Lynn Parsons Green Ridge

Elementary Montgomery Assistant Principal -10.60% 0.40%

David Renninger Sandy Grove

Elementary Hoke Assistant Principal 0.30% 2.70%

Shelly F. Cullipher Edgewood

Elementary Whiteville City Principal -5.20% 2.60%

Dianna W. Bellamy Tabor City Middle Columbus Principal 12.30% 5.20%

Camilla Price House N/A Harnett Director of grades 3–

5 for LEA N/A N/A

Penny McNeill-Lind J.R. Ingram

Elementary Lee Assistant Principal -1.20% -2.60%

Elizabeth Faulk

Bridges SanLee Middle Lee Assistant Principal 10.80% 12.80%

Cynthia Ann Lewis Red Springs High

School Robeson Assistant Principal 7.80% 21.80%

Tara Dee Bullard Piney Grove

Elementary Robeson Assistant Principal 0.70% -0.40%

Joyce Morgan McRae Richmond County

Senior High School * Richmond Assistant Principal N/A 31.80%

Barbara Denise

Adams

I. Ellis Johnson

Elementary Scotland Assistant Principal 4.30% 0.40%

N/A=5 or fewer students in a category and results not shown.

* Richmond County Senior High School excluded from English analysis due to missing English Scores for 2008-09 and

2009-10 school years.


March 2014


Table J4. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, NELA, 2008–09 School Data

School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Mathematics Designation AYP

Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Northampton

County High

School*


(6 of 13 Targets Met) 64.52% 451

Aurelian Springs


Northside


Not Met

(11 of 13 Targets Met) 93.92% 380

Central


Warren County


Not Met

(8 of 13 Targets Met) 67.08% 645

Northwest Halifax


Not Met

(6 of 13 Targets Met) 63.15% 797

Ahoskie


Hertford County


Not Met

(9 of 15 Targets Met) 64.24% 900

Franklinton High


Not Met

(13 of 17 Targets Met) 38.91% 775

Inborden

Elementary 29.30% 42.00% Low Performing

Not Met

(12 of 13 Targets Met) 87.15% 375

Chaloner Middle 62.70% 80.90% School of Progress Met 21 of 21 Targets 48.44% 607

William R. Davie

Middle School 32.00% 41.00% Low Performing

Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 78.02% 344

M. B. Hubbard


*Did not open until 2011–12; used to be Northampton High East so that data is used.


March 2014



School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Northampton

County High

School*


(9 of 13 Targets Met) 69.35% 450

Aurelian Springs


Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 86.70% 418

Northside


Central


Warren County


Not Met

(12 of 13 Targets Met) 65.34% 529

Northwest Halifax


Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 65.43% 737

Ahoskie


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 78.47% 481

Hertford County


Not Met

(4 of 13 Targets Met) 67.95% 800

Franklinton High

School 82.50% 77.60%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 38.87% 812

Inborden


Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 86.29% 376

Chaloner Middle


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 44.87% 578

William R. Davie


Not Met

(9 of 17 Targets Met) 80.94% 436

M. B. Hubbard


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 67.79% 506



March 2014


Table J6. RLA Cohort 1, NELA Job Placements, 2010–11 School Data

School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Northampton

County High

School*

79.30% 71.40% School of Progress Met 13 of 13 Targets 76.04% 392

Aurelian Springs


Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 84.87% 411

Northside


Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 97.26% 362

Central


Not Met

(9 of 13 Targets Met) 87.50% 291

Warren County


Northwest Halifax


Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 72.31% 647

Ahoskie


Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 81.67% 518

Hertford County


Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 65.96% 783

Franklinton High

School 80.40% 77.90%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(11 of 17 Targets Met) 41.27% 842

Inborden


Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 88.16% 392

Chaloner Middle


Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 45.97% 646

William R. Davie


Not Met

(9 of 17 Targets Met) 87.44% 427

M. B. Hubbard


Not Met

(14 of 21 Targets Met) 73.08% 488



March 2014




School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Northampton

County High

School*

72.20% 83.50% School of


Aurelian Springs


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 87.42% 414

Northside


Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 93.41% 344

Central


Not Met

(8 of 13 Targets Met) 86.73% 290

Warren County

High 68.60% 53.90% School of Progress

Not Met

(14 of 15 Targets Met) 74.73% 455

Northwest Halifax


Not Met

(11 of 15 Targets Met) 73.32% 570

Ahoskie


Not Met

(14 of 21 Targets Met 82.59% 521

Hertford County

High 83.50% 69.10%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(11 of 19 Targets Met) 67.70% 747

Franklinton High

School 84.50% 81.50%

School of


Inborden


Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 91.76% 365

Chaloner Middle 67.40% 84.00% School of Progress Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 51.44% 720

William R. Davie


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 79.34% 421

M. B. Hubbard


Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met 75.15% 481


March 2014


Table J8. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, PTLA, 2008–09 School Data


Alternative School.


School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Union Hill


Not Met

(12 of 13 Targets Met) 91.07% 307

High Point

Central High

School


Forest Park

Elementary 31.10% 56.20% Low Performing Met 21 of 21 Targets 100.00% 500

Hanes Middle


Not Met

(27 of 29 Targets Met) 43.77% 719

Eastern Middle


Reedy Fork


Konnoak


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 88.28% 647

Hall-Woodward

Elementary 46.20% 74.30% Priority School Met21 of 21 Targets 94.710 770

Philo-Hill

Magnet

Academy**


(25 of 27 Targets Met) 90.95% 429

Grove Park


Southern Middle


Oak Hill


Not Met

(17 of 23 Targets Met) 98.43% 377

Wiley Middle


Ragsdale High


Graham High


Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 52.18% 794

Aycock Middle


Not Met

(32 of 33 Targets Met) 61.81% 655

Ferndale Middle 53.00% 68.10% School of Progress Met 33 of 33 Targets 73.65% 708

Jones Elementary 75.60% 85.10% School of Progress Met 17 of 17 Targets 48.80% 682

Haw River

Elementary 37.30% 62.40% Low Performing Met 25 of 25 Targets 80.33% 429

Ray Street

Academy* 17.10% 34.10%

No data on NC

Report Card

Not Met

(3 of 4 Targets Met) 57.69% 70


March 2014




Alternative School.


School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Union Hill


Not Met

(11 of 17 Targets Met) 90.42% 441

High Point

Central High 69.90% 52.00% School of Progress Met 21 of 21 Targets 60.57% 1287

Forest Park


Not Met

(12 of 21 Targets Met) 93.78% 520

Hanes Middle 83.90% 87.70% School of


Eastern Middle 55.10% 64.30% No Recognition Not Met

(28 of 37 Targets Met) 61.02% 913

Reedy Fork

Elementary 59.70% 78.40% No Recognition Met 21of 21 Targets 49.89% 482

Konnoak


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 89.23% 612

Hall-Woodward


Philo-Hill

Magnet

Academy**


(19 of 25 Targets Met) 91.86% 357

Grove Park


Southern Middle 56.90% 76.80% School of Progress Not Met

(33 of 35 Targets Met) 63.19% 798

Oak Hill


Wiley Middle 54.90% 66.30% School of Progress Not Met

(24 of 29 Targets Met) 71.85% 549

Ragsdale High 76.70% 40.00% School of Progress Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 38.50% 1386

Graham High 71.10% 61.50% School of Progress Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 56.80% 773

Aycock Middle 65.20% 85.80% School of Progress Met 33 of 33 Targets 68.03% 618

Ferndale Middle 51.80% 64.60% No Recognition Not Met

(26 of 33 Targets Met) 71.49% 757

Jones Elementary 74.20% 80.40% School of Progress Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 47.58% 690

Haw River


Ray Street

Academy* 34.10% 26.80%

No data on NC

Report Card

No data on NC Report

Card 67.45% 64


March 2014




Alternative School.


School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Union Hill


High Point

Central High

School


(15 of 23 Targets Met) 63.74% 1294

Forest Park


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 97.71% 540

Hanes Middle

School 83.90% 87.50%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(30 of 37 Targets Met) 28.94% 1063

Eastern Middle


Not Met

(27 of 33 Targets Met) 65.02% 943

Reedy Fork


Not Met

(15 of 25 Targets Met) 59.38% 521

Konnoak


Not Met

(13 of 21 Targets Met) 90.47% 625

Hall-Woodward


Not Met

(11 of 21 Targets Met) 96.96% 782

Philo-Hill

Magnet

Academy**


(19 of 25 Targets Met) 93.87% 304

Grove Park


Not Met

(14 of 21 Targets Met) 73.90% 540

Southern Middle


Not Met

(25 of 35 Targets Met) 67.84% 783

Oak Hill


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 97.73% 415

Wiley Middle


Not Met

(19 of 29 Targets Met) 73.78% 489

Ragsdale High


Graham High


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 61.09% 753

Aycock Middle


Not Met

(20 of 29 Targets Met) 69.66% 635

Ferndale Middle


Not Met

(25 of 33 Targets Met) 73.82% 833


(12 of 17 Targets Met) 52.97% 699

Haw River


Not Met

(13 of 23 Targets Met) 87.61% 433

Ray Street

Academy* 25.50% 34.00% No Recognition

Not Met

(2 of 4 Targets Met) 72.58% 72


March 2014




Alternative School.


School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Union Hill


Not Met

(10 of 15 Targets Met) 91.27% 483

High Point

Central High

School


(21 of 23 Targets Met) 63.11% 1367

Forest Park


Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 98.58% 573

Hanes Middle

School 82.80% 85.40%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(33 of 37 Targets Met) 28.48% 1078

Eastern Middle


Not Met

(22 of 33 Targets Met) 66.77% 83

Reedy Fork


Not Met

(21 of 25 Targets Met) 64.62% 522

Konnoak


Not Met

(15 of 25 Targets Met) 92.45% 684

Hall-Woodward


Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 96.88% 762

Philo-Hill

Magnet

Academy**


(13 of 21 Targets Met) 93.02% 258

Grove Park


Not Met

(15 of 21 Targets Met) 74.46% 551

Southern Middle


Not Met

(31 of 37 Targets Met) 72.43% 845

Oak Hill


Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets Met) 97.91% 431

Wiley Middle


Not Met

(19 of 29 Targets Met) 77.05% 462

Ragsdale High


Graham High


Aycock Middle 66.30% 82.50% School of Progress Not Met

(29 of 33 Targets Met) 72.39% 588


(20 of 33 Targets Met) 74.67% 867


(15 of 17 Targets Met) 54.83% 716

Haw River


Not Met

(14 of 23 Targets Met) 90.53% 467

Ray Street

Academy* 19.20% 28.00% No Recognition

Not Met

(0 of 2 Targets Met) 83.95% 112


March 2014


Table J12. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, SLA, 2008–09 School Data

*Richmond County Senior High excluded from English analysis due to missing English scores for 2008–09 and 2009–10

school years.

School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Boone Trail


Pinecrest High

School 75.80% 14.30%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(12 of 19 Targets Met) 27.23% 1949

North Moore High


Not Met

(11 of 13 Targets Met) 47.47% 552

Lilesville


Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 74.40% 337

E.E. Smith High

School 65.90% 36.40%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(8 of 13 Targets Met) 63.32% 1132

Alderman Road


School of


Cumberland Mills


Angier Elementary 57.10% 69.80% Priority School Not Met

(25 of 27 Targets Met) 56.25% 250

Green Ridge


School of


Sandy Grove


Edgewood


School of


Tabor City Middle

School 51.60% 75.40%

School of


J.R. Ingram


School of


SanLee Middle

School 64.30% 77.50%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(26 of 29 Targets Met) 63.00% 779

Red Springs High

School 57.30% 58.20%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(5 of 17 Targets Met) 55.05% 655

Piney Grove


School of


Richmond County

Senior High* N/A 9.50%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(14 of 19 Targets Met) 53.42% 1436

I. Ellis Johnson


School of



March 2014



* Richmond County Senior High excluded from English analysis due to missing English scores for 2008–09 and 2009–10

school years.

School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Boone Trail


Not Met

(19 of 23 Targets Met) 67.27% 569

Pinecrest High

School 85.50% 72.20%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(10 of 19 Targets Met) 28.00% 1989

North Moore High


Not Met

(12 of 13 Targets Met) 47.00% 567

Lilesville


School of


E.E. Smith High


Not Met

(11 of 17 Targets Met) 62.29% 1056

Alderman Road


School of

Progress

Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 61.05% 666

Cumberland Mills


Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 67.50% 610

Angier Elementary 54.90% 75.50% School of

Progress

Not Met

(27 of 29 Targets Met) 63.41% 427

Green Ridge


School of


Sandy Grove


School of


Edgewood


School of

Progress

Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets Met) 61.25% 538

Tabor City Middle

School 60.10% 80.30%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 77.65% 233

J.R. Ingram


School of

Progress

Not Met

(22 of 23 Targets Met) 60.44% 699

SanLee Middle

School 66.40% 85.20%

School of


Red Springs High

School 58.90% 75.80%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(10 of 17 Targets Met) 73.37% 678

Piney Grove

Elementary 56.90% 77.30% No recognition Met 19 of 19 Targets 78.55% 620

Richmond County

Senior High

School*

N/A 35.80% School of

Distinction

Not Met

(13 of 17 Targets Met) 59.00% 1408

I. Ellis Johnson


School of



March 2014




school years.

School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Boone Trail


Not Met

(13 of 23 Targets Met) 70.92% 545

Pinecrest High

School 89.70% 80.40%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(9 of 19 Targets Met) 31.20% 2029

North Moore High

School 79.70% 80.80%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(11 of 13 Targets Met) 48.91% 546

Lilesville


Not Met

(12 of 17 Targets Met) 72.33% 304

E.E. Smith High

School 75.90% 68.90%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(15 of 19 Targets Met) 62.23% 1055

Alderman Road


School of

Progress

Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 62.18% 680

Cumberland Mills


School of



(17 of 29 Targets Met) 69.61% 423

Green Ridge


School of

Progress

Not Met

(13 of 21 Targets Met) 89.64% 453

Sandy Grove


Not Met

(13 of 21 Targets Met) 61.65% 542

Edgewood


School of

Progress

Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 67.16% 526

Tabor City Middle 59.90% 79.30% School of

Progress

Not Met

(12 of 17 Targets Met) 80.25% 213

J.R. Ingram


School of

Progress

Not Met

(22 of 25 Targets Met) 63.96% 677

SanLee Middle 70.00% 86.90% School of

Progress

Not Met

(26 of 29 Targets Met) 66.17% 810

Red Springs High

School 57.80% 72.00%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(13 of 17 Targets Met) 75.94% 715

Piney Grove


Not Met

(9 of 17 Targets Met) 83.99% 669

Richmond County

Senior High 6.30%* 30.40%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(14 of 19 Targets Met) 57.82% 1348

I. Ellis Johnson


School of



March 2014




school years.

School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Boone Trail


Not Met

(14 of 21 Targets Met) 70.00% 540

Pinecrest High


Not Met

(16 of 23Targets Met) 33.78% 1982

North Moore High

School 80.80% 79.00%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(9 of 15 Targets Met) 52.55% 566

Lilesville


Not Met

(10 of 17 Targets Met) 76.49% 329

E.E. Smith High

School 80.10% 75.60%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(18 of 19 Targets Met) 60.11% 1133

Alderman Road


School of


Cumberland Mills


School of

Progress

Not Met

(22 of 23 Targets Met) 67.28% 646


(15 of 29 Targets Met) 71.60% 420

Green Ridge


School of

Progress

Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets Met) 89.54% 472

Sandy Grove

Elementary 50.80% 73.60% No recognition

Not Met

(15 of 21Targets Met) 67.08% 535

Edgewood


School of

Progress

Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 72.13% 532

Tabor City Middle 63.90% 80.60% School of

Progress

Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 77.78% 224

J.R. Ingram


Not Met

(24 of 25 Targets Met) 64.53% 706



Red Springs High

School 65.10% 80.00%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(15 of 20 Targets Met) 83.20% 734

Piney Grove


Not Met

(19 of 23 Targets Met) 85.19% 683

Richmond County

Senior High* N/A 41.30%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(22 of 24 Targets Met) 54.04% 1359

I. Ellis Johnson


Not Met

(14 of 15 Targets Met) 94.60% 341


March 2014


Table J16. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, NELA, Total Change in Percentages, 2009–2013


Total Change in

Percentages^

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Mathematics

Amy Pearce Stocks Elementary Edgecombe Assistant Principal

Vernedette Garland Nashville Elementary Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Kelly Shelton Mudd Nash Central Middle Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Tonya Little Riverside Middle Martin Assistant Principal

Kendrick Alston D.S. Johnson

Elementary Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Hugh Scott Southern Nash High

School Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Teicher Patterson Everetts Elementary Halifax Assistant Principal

Lisa Pennington Long Mill Elementary Franklin Teacher Grade 3

Jackson Olsen Northern Vance High

School Vance Assistant Principal

Kimberly Allison Wilton Elementary Granville Assistant Principal

Jenifer Lewis Benvenue Elementary Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Krista Fasioli Williford Elementary Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Tim Mudd Southern Nash High

School Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Jennifer Berry Red Oak Elementary Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Jennifer Berry Swift Creek Elementary Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Zachary Marks Nash Central Middle Nash-Rocky Mount Assistant Principal

Erin Robbins Tar River Elementary Granville Assistant Principal

Angela Strother N/A Edgecombe

AIG Facilitator

(Instruct. Admin-

Central office)

Larry Hodgkins South Creek Middle Martin Assistant Principal

Darren Gemzik South Edgecombe

Middle Edgecombe

Teacher Grade 6

SS/Science

Elizabeth Payne

Moran

J.F. Webb High School

of Health and Life

Sciences

Granville Assistant Principal

Lauren Greenhill Manning Elementary RRGSD Assistant Principal

Notes:

Riverside Middle was formerly known as Williamston Middle.

Red Oak Elementary is K-2 only so there is no testing data.

Jennifer Berry serves as AP at two schools.

Tar River Elementary opened in 2011-12.




March 2014


Table J17. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, PTLA, Total Change in Percentages, 2009–2013


Total Change in

Percentages^

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Mathematics

Kristen Gravely Graham High School Alamance-

Burlington Assistant Principal

Thomas Kazimir Graham High School Alamance-

Burlington Assistant Principal

Dana Roseboro Newlin Elementary Alamance-

Burlington Media Specialist

Ben Cawley N/A Guilford County Mission Possible

Specialist

Kevin Conaway Southeast Guilford Middle Guilford County Assistant Principal

Vernon Hall Ferndale Middle Guilford County Assistant Principal

Darrell Harris Eastern Guilford Middle Guilford County Assistant Principal

Noel Keener Northeast Guilford High

School Guilford County Assistant Principal

Greta Martin Jamestown Middle Guilford County 7th Grade SS Teacher

Janiese McKenzie Northern Guilford High

School Guilford County Assistant Principal

Rashad Slade N/A Guilford County Director of Instructional

Technology

Chelsea Smith Wiley Accel/Enrichment

Elementary Guilford County Assistant Principal

Toks Wall Rankin Elementary Guilford County 5th Grade Teacher

Kimberly Ashby Walkertown High School Winston-


Kathy Bryant Bolton Elementary Winston-


Jonathan Hegedus Kernersville Elementary Winston-


Larnitha Hunter Ibraham Elementary Winston-


Nicole Kurtz West Forsyth High School Winston-

Salem/Forsyth English III Teacher

Susan T Miller Griffith Elementary Winston-

Salem/Forsyth Learning Team Facilitator

Colin Tribby The Downtown School Winston-


Notes:

Walkertown High School opened in 2011-2012.

Nicole Kurtz worked as an English I Honors Teacher at Atkins Academic/Tech High School from August 2013 to December 2013;

she started at West Forsyth High School in January 2014.




March 2014


Table J18. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, SLA, Total Change in Percentages, 2009–2013


Total Change in

Percentages^

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Mathematics

Marci Houseman Southern Pines Primary Moore Principal

Pam Lewis Washington Park

Elementary Scotland Principal

Leslie Bailey Hawk Eye Elementary Hoke Assistant Principal

Anthony Barton Purnell Swett High School Robeson Assistant Principal

Jennifer Brach L.J. Bell Elementary Richmond Assistant Principal

Maxine Brown Hamlet Middle Richmond Assistant Principal

Melissa Brewer East Lee Middle Lee Assistant Principal

Kelly Bullard Tabor City Middle Columbus Lead Teacher

Elizabeth Cole Elizabethtown Middle Bladen Assistant Principal

Kisha Derr SanLee Middle Lee Assistant Principal

Katrina Fox Southern Pines Elementary Moore Assistant Principal

Lisa Hain J. Glenn Edwards

Elementary Lee Assistant Principal

Andrew Keller Lee County High School Lee Assistant Principal

Matt McLean J.R. Ingram Elementary Lee Assistant Principal

Tracy Metcalf Union Pines High School Moore Assistant Principal

Matt Moore Southern Middle Moore Assistant Principal

Mike Picciano Douglas Byrd Middle Cumberland Assistant Principal

Christy Sharpe Broadway Elementary Lee Teacher

Jennifer Spivey Boone Trail Elementary Harnett Assistant Principal

Joy Smart Scotland High School Scotland Assistant Principal

Kristy West N/A Robeson Instructional

Specialist

Notes:

Southern Pines Primary is K-2 only so there is no testing data.

Scotland High School used to be made up of 6 learning academies but merged into one HS in 2011-2012; treating as new

school as of 2011-2012 since data is incomplete for learning academies from 2008-2011.




March 2014


Table J19. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, NELA, 2009-10 School Data

Notes:





School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Stocks


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 68.86% 663

Nashville


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 49.07% 797

Nash Central


Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 70.00% 644

Riverside Middle 64.60% 76.60% School of Progress Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 59.43% 375

D.S. Johnson


Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 81.93% 455

Southern Nash


Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 43.68% 1184

Everetts


Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 81.38% 359

Long Mill


Northern Vance


Not Met

(10 of 17 Targets Met) 52.44% 1059

Wilton


School of


Benvenue


Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 65.37% 829

Williford


Not Met

(12 of 15 Targets Met) 93.75% 491

Red Oak

Elementary N/A N/A

School of


Swift Creek


School of


Tar River

Elementary N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

South Creek

Middle 64.70% 77.00% School of Progress Met 15 of 15 Targets 77.24% 256

South

Edgecombe

Middle

54.30% 70.00% No Recognition Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 51.75% 383

J.F. Webb HS of

Health and Life

Sciences

85.10% 80.00% School of


Manning


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 44.88% 667


March 2014



Notes:





School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Stocks


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 75.49% 661

Nashville


School of


Nash Central

Middle 54.30% 68.20%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(20 of 25 Targets Met) 69.84% 622

Riverside Middle 68.10% 82.00% School of

Progress

Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 58.45% 397

D.S. Johnson


Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 80.20% 471

Southern Nash


Not Met

(21 of 24 Targets Met) 56.81% 1231

Everetts


Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 90.73% 353

Long Mill


School of

Progress

Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 47.17% 538

Northern Vance


School of

Progress

Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 61.27% 1006

Wilton


School of

Distinction

Not Met

(13 of 17 Targets Met) 40.23% 627

Benvenue


School of

Progress

Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 68.67% 831

Williford


Not Met

(9 of 15 Targets Met) 94.09% 447

Red Oak

Elementary N/A N/A

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 52.40% 321

Swift Creek


School of

Distinction

Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 46.15% 335

Tar River

Elementary N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

South Creek

Middle 71.50% 84.70%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 64.27% 390

South

Edgecombe

Middle

55.30% 70.90% School of

Progress

Not Met

(12 of 17 Targets Met) 63.68% 366

J.F. Webb HS of

Health and Life

Sciences

87.50% 95.00% Honor School of


Manning


School of

Progress

Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 47.27% 660


March 2014



Notes:




School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Stocks


Nashville


School of


Nash Central

Middle 59.80% 67.80% No Recognition

Not Met

(13 of 15 Targets Met) 70.95% 608

Riverside Middle 69.70% 78.90% School of Progress Not Met

(16 of 21 Targets Met) 62.47% 408

D.S. Johnson


Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 89.64% 473

Southern Nash


Not Met

(25 of 26 Targets Met) 49.10% 1215

Everetts


Not Met

(10 of 13 Targets Met) 92.62% 343

Long Mill


School of


Northern Vance

High School 65.50% 44.70% School of Progress Met 20 of 20 Targets 63.87% 934

Wilton


School of


Benvenue


Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets) 71.58% 748

Williford


Not Met

(7 of 13 Targets Met) 99.38% 427

Red Oak

Elementary N/A N/A No Recognition Met 17 of 17 Targets 50.78% 293

Swift Creek


Tar River


School of

Distinction Met 13 of 13Targets 36.29% 508

South Creek


Not Met

(19 of 21Targets Met) 67.61% 386

South

Edgecombe

Middle


(10 of 17 Targets Met) 65.77% 376

J.F. Webb HS of

Health and Life

Sciences



Manning


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 52.43% 653


March 2014


Table J22. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, PTLA, 2009-10 School Data

School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Mathematics Designation AMO

Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Graham High

School 71.10% 61.50%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 56.80% 773

Newlin


Not Met

(18 of 23 Targets Met) 87.40% 601

Southeast

Guilford Middle 73.20% 83.50%

School of

Progress

Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 31.49% 1024


(26 of 33 Targets Met) 71.49% 757

Eastern Guilford

Middle 55.10% 64.30% No Recognition

Not Met

(28 of 37 Targets Met) 61.02% 913

Northeast

Guilford High

School

72.30% 55.80% School of

Progress

Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 47.99% 1122

Jamestown

Middle 74.00% 85.50%

School of


Northern

Guilford High

School

91.50% 50.00% School of

Distinction

Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 17.06% 1158

Wiley

Accel/Enrichment

Elementary


(10 of 13 Targets Met) 98.88% 244

Rankin


Not Met

(24 of 25 Targets Met) 88.32% 617

Walkertown High


Bolton


School of


Kernersville


School of


Ibraham


School of


West Forsyth


Honor School of


Griffith


School of

Progress

Not Met

(23 of 24 Targets Met) 78.07% 596

The Downtown

School 92.10% 95.00%

Honor School of


Notes:




March 2014



School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Graham High


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 61.09% 753

Newlin


Not Met

(14 of 23 Targets Met) 91.00% 619

Southeast

Guilford Middle 75.10% 84.50% School of Progress

Not Met

(22 of 25 Targets Met) 35.90% 1018

Ferndale Middle 54.70% 69.30% School of Progress Not Met

(25 of 33 Targets Met) 73.82% 833

Eastern Guilford


Not Met

(27 of 33 Targets Met) 65.02% 943

Northeast

Guilford High

School


(13 of 17 Targets Met) 52.51% 1097

Jamestown

Middle 75.10% 87.20%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(35 of 37 Targets Met) 51.02% 1083

Northern

Guilford High

School

95.00% 77.90% School of


Wiley

Accel/Enrichment

Elementary

38.30% 68.20% Priority School Met 13 of 13 Targets 97.98% 238

Rankin


Not Met

(18 of 29 Targets Met) 91.10% 668

Walkertown High


Bolton


Not Met

(17 of 25 Targets Met) 86.26% 590

Kernersville


Not Met

(20 of 29 Targets Met) 62.85% 871

Ibraham


Not Met

(10 of 17 Targets Met) 92.97% 463

West Forsyth


Honor School of


Griffith


Not Met

(13 of 25 Targets Met) 84.54% 547

The Downtown

School 92.00% 94.30%

Honor School of


Notes:




March 2014



School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Graham High


Newlin


Not Met

(14 of 21 Targets Met) 91.43% 604

Southeast

Guilford Middle 74.60% 84.70%

School of



(20 of 33 Targets Met) 74.67% 867

Eastern Guilford


Not Met

(22 of 33 Targets Met) 66.77% 983

Northeast

Guilford High

School


(21 of 23 Targets Met) 52.98% 1060

Jamestown

Middle 75.90% 89.40%

School of


Northern

Guilford High

School



Wiley

Accel/Enrichment

Elementary


Rankin


Not Met

(22 of 29 Targets Met) 92.12% 715

Walkertown High


Not Met

(7 of 10 Targets Met) 57.79% 222

Bolton


Not Met

(18 of 21 Targets Met) 87.33% 573

Kernersville


Ibraham


Not Met

(17 of 21 Targets Met) 92.95% 454

West Forsyth


Honor School of


Griffith


Not Met

(22 of 25 Targets Met) 85.04% 551

The Downtown

School 86.70% 95.00%

Honor School of



March 2014


Table J25. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, SLA, 2009-10 School Data

School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Southern Pines

Primary N/A N/A School of Progress

Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 57.00% 442

Washington Park


School of


Hawk Eye


Not Met

(8 of 13 Targets Met) 86.46% 411

Purnell Swett


Not Met

(8 of 17 Targets Met) 63.79% 1619

L.J. Bell


Hamlet Middle 55.00% 70.10% School of Progress Not Met

(23 of 25 Targets Met) 71.30% 586

East Lee Middle 67.70% 80.40% School of Progress Not Met

(27 of 29 Targets Met) 57.97% 630

Tabor City


Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 77.65% 233

Elizabethtown


Not Met

(20 of 25 Targets Met) 76.75% 481

SanLee Middle 66.40% 85.20% School of Progress Met 29 of 29 Targets 62.97% 790

Southern Pines


Not Met

(20 of 21 Targets Met) 50.00% 421

J. Glenn Edwards


Lee County High


J.R. Ingram


Not Met

(22 of 23 Targets Met) 60.44% 699

Union Pines High

School 83.90% 69.10%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(12 of 15 Targets Met) 31.00% 1174


(22 of 25 Targets Met) 53.00% 712

Douglas Byrd

Middle 55.10% 74.10% School of Progress Met 25 of 25 Targets 74.15% 643

Broadway


Boone Trail


Not Met

(19 of 23 Targets Met) 67.27% 569

Scotland High


Notes:


Scotland High School used to be made up of six learning academies but merged into one high school in 2011-2012;

treating as new school as of 2011-2012 since data is incomplete for learning academies from 2008-2011.


March 2014



School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/


Percentage

of Low-

Income

Students

School

Size

Southern Pines

Primary N/A N/A No Recognition

Not Met

(15 of 21 Targets Met) 56.05% 409

Washington Park


School of

Distinction

Not Met

(16 of 17 Targets Met) 61.30% 319

Hawk Eye


Not Met

(13 of 17 Targets Met) 86.68% 400

Purnell Swett


Not Met

(13 of 19 Targets Met) 69.02% 1615

L.J. Bell


School of

Distinction

Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 60.97% 521


(16 of 21 Targets Met) 70.92% 576

East Lee Middle 67.40% 79.10% School of Progress Not Met

(20 of 29 Targets Met) 59.62% 649

Tabor City


Not Met

(12 of 17 Targets Met) 80.25% 213

Elizabethtown


Not Met

(14 of 25 Targets Met) 77.46% 419

SanLee Middle 70.00% 86.90% School of Progress Not Met

(26 of 29 Targets Met) 66.17% 810

Southern Pines


Not Met

(15 of 21 Targets Met) 53.18% 421

J. Glenn Edwards


Not Met

(24 of 25 Targets Met) 76.90% 686

Lee County High


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 43.29% 1341

J.R. Ingram


Not Met

(22 of 25 Targets Met) 63.96% 677

Union Pines

High School 88.50% 77.800%

School of

Distinction

Not Met

(12 of 17 Targets Met) 35.05% 1181


(23 of 25 Targets Met) 56.22% 713

Douglas Byrd


Not Met

(13 of 25 Targets Met) 78.19% 690

Broadway


Not Met

(13 of 21 Targets Met) 73.01% 593

Boone Trail


Not Met

(13 of 23 Targets Met) 70.92% 545

Scotland High


Notes:


Scotland High School used to be made up of six learning academies but merged into one high school in 2011-2012;

treating as new school as of 2011-2012 since data is incomplete for learning academies from 2008-2011.


March 2014



School of

Placement

English I/

Reading

Algebra I/

Mathematics Designation AMO (formerly AYP)

Percentage of

Low-Income

Students

School

Size

Southern Pines

Primary N/A N/A School of Progress

Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 54.88% 447

Washington Park


Hawk Eye


Not Met

(14 of 17 Targets Met) 91.63% 356

Purnell Swett


Not Met

(13 of 16 Targets Met) 70.49% 1647

L.J. Bell


School of



(15 of 21 Targets Met) 71.91% 569

East Lee Middle 61.50% 75.40% No Recognition Not Met

(17 of 29 Targets Met) 62.40% 682

Tabor City


Not Met

(15 of 17 Targets Met) 77.78% 224

Elizabethtown


Not Met

(15 of 25 Targets Met) 79.86% 407



Southern Pines


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 57.89% 399

J. Glenn

Edwards

Elementary


(22 of 25 Targets Met) 79.30% 708

Lee County High


Not Met

(21 of 25 Targets Met) 50.15% 1361

J.R. Ingram


Not Met

(24 of 25 Targets Met) 64.53% 706

Union Pines



(17 of 25 Targets Met) 58.19% 751

Douglas Byrd


Not Met

(24 of 29 Targets Met) 80.23% 730

Broadway


Not Met

(19 of 21 Targets Met) 78.75% 558

Boone Trail


Not Met

(14 of 21 Targets Met) 70.00% 540

Scotland High


Not Met

(20 of 30 Targets Met) 53.10% 1555

Note: Southern Pines Primary is K-2 only so there is no testing data.

Contact Information:

Please direct all inquiries to Kathleen M. Brown

[email protected]

© 2014 Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina

mailto:[email protected]

North Carolina Regional Leadership Academies

Documents

Transcript of North Carolina Regional Leadership Academies