You are on page 1of 15

Support File for ELCC Standard 5

A building-level education leader applies knowledge that promotes the success of
every student by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner to ensure
a school system of accountability for every student’s academic and social success
by modeling school principles of self-awareness, reflective practice, transparency,
and ethical behavior as related to their roles within the school; safeguarding the
values of democracy, equity, and diversity within the school; evaluating the
potential moral and legal consequences of decision making in the school; and
promoting social justice within the school to ensure that individual student needs
inform all aspects of schooling.

Standard Artifact/Activit
Element y

Reflection

Source
(Course)

5.1, 5.2,
5.3

Webster Case

EA 754

5.1, 5.2,
5.3, 5.4,
5.5
5.1, 5.2,
5.3, 5.4

Supreme Court
Case Analysis

Worked with a group to create an
action plan aimed at helping a
struggling school and its new
administrator
Analysis of “NJ vs. TLO” and the
implications the decision had on
public schools
This paper outlines how I would deal
with a sensitive school issue as the
school administrator
Met with Huron Valley’s Supervisor
of Finance to discuss various budget
issues in the district
Overview and analysis of Huron
Valley’s budget communication
efforts
Analysis regarding a First
Amendment legal issue in a public
school

EA 741

*Artifact 1

*Artifact 2

Administrator
Response Case
Study

EA 742

EA 742

*Artifact 3

5.2, 5.4

Business Manager
Interview

5.2, 5.4

District Budget
Communication
Analysis
Case Study
Reflection

5.1, 5.2,
5.3, 5.4

*Artifacts are labeled and listed below.

EA 741

EA 742

Artifact 1

Memorandum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To: Dr. Caryn Wells, Superintendent
From: John Grizzly, Oakland Community Schools Human Resource Specialist
Date: November 30, 2015
Subject: Webster Elementary Mentorship and Action Plan

After meeting with you on October 25, 2015, I have reviewed the data you gave me regarding
Webster Elementary and its staff. I had an opportunity this past week to meet with Principal
Papadapolis to begin getting to know her and the school community. After careful observations
and reflections, I have attached responses to your questions you provided me that I believe will
help get Webster Elementary back on the right path. Please note that some of my responses are
supported by research, hence the notations in parentheses.
How do you guide the principal to assess the staff? What are your conclusions about this
school?






Assessing the staff:
Understanding that inspiring leaders make emotional connections (Zenger & Folkman, 2013),
recommend to the principal to meet informally with each staff member to improve relationships
and get a better understanding of the current school culture.
Get to know each staff member on a personal level (i.e. family, interests outside of school)
Get to know each staff member on a professional level (i.e. goals, aspirations, career highlights)
Discuss with each staff member what they feel are the best attributes of Webster Elementary and
its school community.
Discuss with each staff member what they feel Webster needs the most to improve.
Complete a minimum of one walk-through informal observation per week of each staff member.
Follow-up conversation or memo with each staff member
Conclusions:

Webster Elementary is comprised of a large staff of 26 educators, with a broad range of
experience. Over half the staff has been teaching 16 years or more, and several of those were
noted as marginal or below average on their informal evaluation. Although the previous
principal had formally documented only two teachers below average, Principal Papadapolis’
informal observations paint a much different picture. Two grade levels (3rd and 6th) are of most
concern based off of the teacher evaluation data. The remaining grade levels appear to have at
least one highly effective teacher. The marginal teacher effectiveness data, the climate of
isolation among the staff, and the lack of parental support and satisfaction has created a toxic
culture at the school. In addition to affecting the culture, these may also have been the primary
causes of the declining student test data. These will be areas that the principal will want to
address with the staff and parent community moving forward.
What are the questions you would ask the principal to get her to think about improving the
effectiveness of the staff? What evidence would you use to help this principal realistically and
fairly look for teacher improvement?

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.










Questions to begin thinking about improving staff effectiveness:
When you walk into a classroom, what attributes do you look for that represent effective
teaching and learning?
What do you see as the strengths of the staff at Webster Elementary?
What areas concern you the most about your staff?
How would you summarize the current culture amongst the staff?
How often do your teachers collaborate within grade levels or across grade levels with a focus on
student growth?
What professional learning opportunities do you feel are needed in your school?
Have you identified teacher leaders and master teachers within your building?
Are there schoolwide committees? If so, how is it determined who serves on the committees?
Evidence needed to represent teacher improvement:
Student growth data (including data walls within classrooms)
Overall teacher evaluation data
Parent perception data
Student perception data
Student behavior (i.e. number of discipline referrals)
Staff perception data
Grade-level PLC minutes
How often and what is the focus of each meeting?
Are the goals aligned to the school’s improvement plan?
Displays of student work
What kinds of staff development would you suggest she initiate for this school year?
Webster Elementary has many areas that have been identified as needing improvement. To have
the greatest impact on student achievement, I will be recommending to Principal Papadapolis







that the focus of staff development should be on cultures and systems for the remainder of the
school year. According to Fullan & Quinn (2016), “The key to a capacity building approach lies
in developing a common knowledge and skill base across all leaders and educators in the system,
focusing on a few goals…” (p. 57) Therefore, my recommendations will include:
Creating school mission, vision, values, and goal statements
Team-building activities (i.e. book study, staff retreat, after school social outings)
Utilizing local ISD to provide professional development on:
team-building
development of effective PLCs
student growth data analysis
mindfulness training
How will you help this principal understand the parents and community? What importance
will you place on working with the parents?
Working with the parents and community is of great importance in developing a high-performing
school. As stated by Olsen and Fuller (2008), understanding parents benefits the school by:

● Schools that actively involve parents and the community tend to establish better reputations in
the community.
● Schools also experience better community support.
● School programs that encourage and involve parents usually do better and have higher quality
programs than programs that do not involve parents (p. 129-130).
To better understand the parents and community, I will help the principal:
● Develop, deploy, and analyze a parent perception survey. This survey will include questions
aimed at gathering parent perceptions regarding school climate, teacher satisfaction, and their
child(ren)’s educational experience.
● Create a monthly parent meeting schedule. Each month will have a focus based on the concerns
from the parent survey.
● Establish a working relationship with the PTA (attend monthly meetings)
● Create opportunities for face-to-face interactions (i.e. family-focused events, parent volunteers,
student achievement showcases/celebrations) to build “relationships and networks” (Bolman &
Deal, 2008, p. 365).
● Reflect on parent and community interactions with one-on-one discussions following these
specific events.

What are the “landmine” issues for which you will warn the principal? What are the
cautions?
Landmines/Cautions:

● Third grade, a pivotal transition year for student foundational skills (academic and social), had
no teacher with an evaluation of above average or better.
● “Managers often fail to get things done because they rely too much on reason and too little on
relationships.” (Bolman & Deal, p. 218) Having a strong plan with data to support it is not
enough; Principal Papadapolis must focus on the relationship with and among stakeholders to be
successful.
● 47% of your veteran staff (16 years+) are marginal or below average on their formal and
informal evaluations.
● Possible resistance from staff to participate in team-building activities.
● Devoting too much time to issues not related to mission, vision, values, and goals (i.e. student
achievement, school improvement, staff development).
● Potential discrepancy between former principal’s formal evaluations of staff in comparison to
current principal’s initial assessments.
● Difficulty establishing school-community relationships due to language and cultural barriers, in
addition to families looking to reclaim the past.
Create a success rubric along with this principal. What indicators would you look for and
with what timeline?
Focus Area 1: Improving the Culture in the School
Success Indicators

Timeline

Parent, student, and staff surveys created

December

Informal staff relationship meetings completed

December

Staff Holiday Party

December

Parent, student, and staff surveys deployed, collected, and analyzed

January

Share out survey results to all stakeholders

January

Mission, Vision, Values, and Goal Statements Created

February

Mindfulness Book Study Group Started

February

Monthly Staff Social Events

February-May

Staff Team Building Activities Completed (one per month based on survey data)

March-May

Mindfulness Book Study Culmination Activity - ISD Guest Speaker

May

End of the Year Staff Party

June
Focus Area 2: Systems Implementation
Success Indicators

Walk-Through Schedule Created

Timeline
December

Monthly Parent Meeting Schedule and Agendas Created Using Survey Data

January

Notes from PTA Meetings and Parent Meetings Shared with Staff

January-June

Documentation of Walk-Through Visits Completed

January-June

PLC Professional Learning Sessions- Local ISD Facilitation
Schoolwide Committees Created

January PD Day
March PD Day
May PD Day
February

Student Data Analysis Training- Hosted by Local ISD (3 sessions)
PLC Schedules Created

March-May
February

PLCs Meeting Bi-Monthly

February-June

PLC Agendas Completed and Submitted

February-June

Principal attends PLC meetings

February-June

What do you feel are the most serious challenges to moving forward and how would you help
the principal?










Staff’s recognition for a need to improve the culture at the school.
Help Principal Papadapolis develop and deploy a staff perception survey.
Recommend that the principal analyze the data with the staff.
Recommend that the principal share and discuss the student and parent perception data with the
staff.
Cultivating collaborative cultures amongst the staff.
Help the principal plan and implement team building activities to build relational trust within the
staff.
All decisions must reflect the school’s mission, vision, values, and goals.
Develop a structure to ensure PLCs are implemented with fidelity.
Beginning to think about and plan for year two.
Address instructional practices and resources needed for improvement (i.e. staff development
and materials)
Address student achievement data with a focus on improving district and state assessment scores.
References
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools,
Districts, and Systems.

Olsen, G. & Fuller, M.L. (2008). Home-school relations: Working successfully with parents
and families (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Zenger, J. & Folkman, J. (2013, June 20). What Inspiring Leaders Do. Harvard Business
Review- OnPoint, Fall 2015, 13-14.

Artifact 2

N.J. v. T.L.O.; The Facts, Issues, and Outcome
Sally A. Drummond and Gregory D. Ristau
Oakland University

N.J. v. T.L.O.; The Facts, Issues, and Outcome
Introduction
The Fourth Amendment states; “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and

no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” It is an
elaborate way of stating that we as citizens do not have to fear illegal searches or seizures of our
properties and possessions unless we have given a legitimate cause to do so. In other words, an
officer of the law cannot enter my home just because he or she feels like it. They only way an
officer may enter my home is if I personally invite them in, or if a warrant is provided. If our
Fourth Amendment Rights are violated, any evidence obtained is not allowed to be used against
us in court. This is all very explicit in terms of regular citizens and law enforcement officials.
But what happens when the need arises for searches and/or seizures at public schools? Do
students have the same rights as adult citizens? Are teachers and administrators bound by the
same rules as law enforcement officials? These questions were at the center of our case, and
were answered in the judgment of the United States Supreme Court in N.J. v. T.L.O.

Facts of the Case
T.L.O. was a fourteen year old freshman at Piscataway High School in Middlesex
County, New Jersey when the events of this case first began. On March 7, 1980, she was one of
two girls that were discovered smoking in the bathroom at school. Because this was a violation
of school rules, T.L.O. and the other girl were taken to the Principal’s office and subsequently
met with the Assistant Vice Principal, Theodore Choplick. The one girl admitted to smoking in
the bathroom, but T.L.O. denied that she had done anything wrong. She also told Mr. Choplick
that she did not smoke at all. At this point, Mr. Choplick demanded to see T.L.O.’s purse. Upon
opening her purse, he discovered a pack of cigarettes and noticed a package of cigarette rolling
papers as well. Seeing the rolling papers caused Mr. Choplick to further search through T.L.O.’s
purse where many more items were discovered. These items included; a small amount of

marijuana, a pipe, a number of empty plastic bags, a substantial amount of money in one-dollar
bills, an index card that appeared to be a list of students who owed T.L.O. money, and two letters
that implicated T.L.O. in marijuana dealing. At this point, Mr. Choplick called T.L.O.’s mother
and the police. When the police arrived, they were given the evidence from the purse and they
asked the mother of T.L.O. to bring her to the police station. At the police station, T.L.O.
confessed to selling marijuana at the high school. This confession, along with the evidence
found in her purse, allowed the state to bring delinquency charges against T.L.O. in the Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County. In addition to separate school suspensions,
one for the smoking violation and one for the drugs, T.L.O. was found to be a delinquent and was
sentenced to one year’s probation.
Legal Procedural History
From the day that T.L.O. was caught smoking in the bathroom, to the day that the
Supreme Court handed down their decision, almost five years had gone by. It is very interesting
to think about the fact that this case began with T.L.O. as a fourteen year old freshman, and that
she was no longer in high school when the case was finally complete. What seemed like an open
and shut case, changed when the charges of delinquency were first brought against T.L.O. in
1980, and she filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in her purse as well as her
confession. T.L.O. argued that her Fourth Amendment Rights had been violated when Mr.
Choplick searched her purse and that the illegal search had also tainted her confession. The
Juvenile Court denied her motion to suppress, stating that her Fourth Amendment Rights had not
been violated because Mr. Choplick had a reasonable suspicion to conduct his search. Therefore,
on March 23, 1981, T.L.O. was found guilty of being a delinquent. About ten months later, on
January 8, 1982, T.L.O. was sentenced to one year’s probation. Later that year, the Appellate

Division held with the trial court that there had not been a Fourth Amendment violation, but
vacated the decision that T.L.O. was a delinquent and wanted to reconsider whether or not her
Fifth Amendment Rights had been violated due to the circumstances surrounding her confession.
The following year, after T.L.O. appealed the Fourth Amendment ruling once again, the Supreme
Court of New Jersey reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division and ordered that the
evidence found in T.L.O.’s purse should be suppressed. They believed that Mr. Choplick did not
have reasonable cause to search the purse, and therefore the evidence could not be used because
it was unlawfully obtained. Moving forward, the United States Supreme Court granted
certiorari to determine whether the exclusionary rule applied to evidence unlawfully seized at
schools. The issue of the Fourth Amendment Rights resurfaced and became part of the U.S.
Supreme Court’s final decision. On January 15, 1985, the Supreme Court’s final ruling held
three decisions; (1) the Fourth Amendment applies to searches conducted by school officials, (2)
Schoolchildren do have privacy rights, but can be searched without a warrant if there is a
legitimate reason to do so, and (3) the search regarding T.L.O.’s purse was not unreasonable and
therefore the decision to suppress the evidence by the New Jersey Supreme Court should be
reversed.
Main Legal Issues
N.J. v. T.L.O. focused on the Fourth Amendment and had five areas that were the issues
in the case. First and foremost, the courts needed to determine whether or not T.L.O.’s Fourth
Amendment Rights had been violated. To answer this question, a ruling had to be made in terms
of how school officials were looked at in the eyes of the law. The question centered on whether
or not they were employees of the state or representatives of the parents. If they were simply
state employees, they were bound by the same prohibitions that other law enforcement officials

had under the Fourth Amendment. However, if they were acting on the behalf of parents, they
could claim the same immunities that moms and dads have when they conduct searches of their
own children. In addition to this determination, the courts also had to decide whether or not
children had privacy rights in regards to items that they willing choose to bring to school. This
argument centered on the idea that children are giving up their right to privacy when they
voluntarily bring personal effects onto school property. The final question that needed to be
answered to determine whether or not T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment Rights had been violated
looked at the issue of warrants and probable cause and whether or not they applied to school
officials when they wanted to search a student. Once all of that was sorted out and a decision
was made, the last issue that had to be worked out involved deciding if Mr. Choplick had the
right to conduct his search in the first place.
Court’s Decision and Rationale
As mentioned above, the United States Supreme Court decided 6-3 to reverse the
judgment of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Because of this ruling, the evidence found in
T.L.O.’s purse could not be suppressed and was admissible in her delinquency hearing. Although
they agreed that school officials are held to the same standards as law enforcement in terms of
the Fourth Amendment, they do not have to obtain warrants or have probable cause to conduct a
search. School officials have an obligation to maintain discipline in an educational setting and
therefore need only a reasonable suspicion that a search will provide evidence that a student has
broken, or is breaking a law or school rule. In other words, students’ Fourth Amendment Rights
are not as stringent as they will be when they are adults. So despite the fact that Mr. Choplick
did not have parental immunity under the Fourth Amendment, he did not violate T.L.O.’s
Constitutional Rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the report he received about

T.L.O. smoking justified his initial search of the purse. The court also confirmed that the
observation of rolling papers was reasonable justification to further search the purse. T.L.O.’s
right to privacy was vacated because her actions gave school officials enough reason to believe
that she had violated a school policy and was thereby subject to a search.

Artifact 3
Greg Ristau
EA 742 – Moodle Assignment #2
Administrator Response Case Study

With only two hours left in the school day, I would have to act quickly. This is not
something that can wait until the following day, especially because it involves inappropriate
contact. Although I would typically want to reach out to the lunch monitors first to get the adult
perspective, time is of the essence and I would have to call them after meeting with all of the
female students involved. In my opinion, I do not want these girls to leave school before
meeting with me, and I would like to have the opportunity to share the information with the
parents before they do.
After writing down the information and names that Ms. Malarkey shared with me, I
would proceed to meet individually with the six girls who were a part of the reported incidents.
During these meetings, I would ask each girl to share with me exactly what had happened during
recess. I would instruct them to be honest, to only share what they witnessed or experienced, and
to not speculate or add anything that was told to them. I would reassure them that they were not
in trouble and that school was a safe place. I would also tell them that their names would be kept
confidential during this process, and that I would be reaching out to their families to tell them we
had met. If any of the girls had reported to me that they were touched inappropriately, I would
share that with their families as well so they could follow up with them after school. I would
also make sure that the families knew that this type of behavior was not acceptable at Sutton
Elementary, and that I would be dealing with the issue to the extent that our Student Code of
Conduct allowed.
Once I had met with all of the girls involved, taken down their statements, and contacted
their families, I would proceed to reach out to the lunch monitors. Although it sounded as if they
had not been told about these inappropriate actions, I would still want to make sure that they did
not have any information to share with me. I would also ask them to meet with me in the
morning so that I could make them aware that these actions had been reported, and that we
would need to be on the lookout for any of these behaviors moving forward.
Lastly I would meet with each of the boys that had been accused, one at a time. In
addition to Hector and Ivan, I would also hope to determine the other two boys that Kendall
reported were bothering her. In situations when students do not know another student’s name, a
yearbook typically helps them identify the student when they recognize their face. During my
meeting with each of the boys, I would have them tell me about their recess and then ask them if
they knew why I needed to meet with them. If they were unsure of the reason, I would inform
them of the accusation that had been made against them. After providing that information, I
would then give them an opportunity to confirm or deny the allegations, reminding them that
students had come forward with this unfortunate information. Once I had each of their
statements, I would tell them that I would be contacting their families to let them know that we
had met and the reason for our meeting. I would inform the families about our Student Code of
Conduct and the possible consequences that could happen should the accusations against their
son(s) be confirmed (assuming their son had not admitted to any wrongdoing already). I would
also ask that they talk with their son that evening to see if they could gather any more
information that would be helpful.
Once I had gathered all of the information and contacted all of the families involved, I
would next look at each student’s discipline history. I would be looking to see how often the
boys had gotten into trouble while at Sutton and if they had ever been accused of, or disciplined
for, this type of behavior in the past. I would also look at the girls’ files to see if they had ever
made these accusations before and if they had ever been caught making up any allegations. With

the seriousness of these types of accusations, I would want to be sure that I have gathered and
examined as much information as possible before coming to any conclusions.
After completing my investigation, the next steps would depend on whether the
allegations were true and the discipline history of the students involved. If for some reason the
girls had lied about the boys’ behavior, there would have to be consequences that involved loss
of recess privileges and possibly a day or two suspension depending on their prior discipline
history. The girls would need to understand how serious these accusations are and that it could
have led to serious consequences for the boys they accused. If the investigation confirmed the
allegations, I would then plan to meet with each boy and their family to discuss the incident
further and share the next steps involving the consequences. In addition to denial of recess
privileges, each boy would also be looking at a several day suspension depending on what was
outlined in the Student Code of Conduct and whether or not there were any prior infractions on
their discipline record. Inappropriate touching is a serious offense and I would want to make
sure that incidents like these do not take place at Sutton Elementary again. Suspending the boys
involved would hopefully send a strong message that this behavior is unacceptable and should
deter any other students from making the same mistake in the future.