Consortium for
Educational
Research and
Evaluation–
North
Carolina
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
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2012 Report
March 2014
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
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
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
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
2
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
3
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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 lowerincome 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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
4
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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).
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
5
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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 lowperforming 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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
6
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
7
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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 lowachieving 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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
8
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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.
o Most (90%) Cohort 2 members are now employed as educational leaders in the
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.
o Most (86%) Cohort 1 members are now employed as educational leaders in the
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
support through 2014.
o Most (75%) Cohort 2 members are now employed as educational leaders in the
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
9
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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.
o Most (90%) Cohort 1 members are now employed as educational leaders in the
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
support through 2014.
o Most (90%) Cohort 1 members are now employed as educational leaders in the
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
10
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Figure 1. Regions Served by the North Carolina Regional Leadership Academies
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
11
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
12
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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 highneed 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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
13
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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 highquality 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/wpcontent/uploads/2011/10/RLA_First-Year-Report-03-04-13.pdf).
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
14
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table 1. RLA Recruitment Criteria in Comparison to Other Leadership Preparation Programs
Recruitment Criteria
1. Established reputation (i.e.,
known entity, word of mouth,
graduates, etc.)
2. Brochures and informational
materials
3. “Tapping” process in LEAs in
which people are encouraged to
apply
4. Website information
5. Email blasts and LEA updates
6. Local, state and national
presentations
7. Newspaper accounts, media
coverage and various public
relations press releases throughout
the year (including promotional
videos)
8. Collaboration with partnering
LEAs
9. LEA based information sessions
10. Superintendent endorsement
11. Superintendent meeting updates
12. School Board presentations
13. Partnerships with organizations
(e.g., NC Education Consortiums,
Teach For America, Historically
Black Colleges/Universities, etc.)
14. Commitment (initially and
ongoing) to changing, improving,
and transforming schools
15. Willingness to make multi-year,
post-academy commitment
NELA
PTLA
SLA
Other
Alternative
Preparation
Programs (e.g.,
NYCLA, NLNS)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
^
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
^
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
^
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
^
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
^
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
^
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
^
^
^
^
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
^
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
^
Yes
Yes
Yes
^
(PFs+ do)
NC
Traditional
MSA*
^
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
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
15
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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).
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
16
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table 2. Number of Participants who were Accepted Versus Number of Candidates who Applied
RLA
NELA
PTLA
SLA
2011–12 Cohort 1
Acceptance Rate
24/38 = 63%*
21/173 = 12%
20/110 = 18%
2012–13 Cohort 2
Acceptance Rate
21/41 = 51%
20/169 = 12%
21/79 = 27%
2013–14 Cohort 3
Acceptance Rate
20/28 = 71%**
22/197 = 11%
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 universitybased 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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
17
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table 3. RLA Selection Criteria in Comparison to Other Leadership Preparation Programs
Selection Criteria
1. Application form (including transcripts,
scores, and criminal background check)
2. Resume of professional experience (some
minimal requirements)
3. Letters of recommendation
4. Purpose statements/Letters of interest
5. Writing sample/educational essay
6. Master’s degree with minimum 3.0 GPA
7. Superintendent’s nomination
8. A homework assignment (e.g., 2- to 3minute videotaped presentation on “Why I
want to be a leader in a high needs school”)
9. Completion of self-assessment surveys
(e.g., grit/perseverance/passion and
leadership responsibilities)
10. Assessment Day (including role play,
timed writing activity, scenario-based
simulations, team decision making process,
presentations, and response to scenarios)
11. Group Q&A sessions and interviews
with panel of LEA partners
12. One-on-one Interviews
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
14. Commitment to multi-year, postacademy employment/leadership position
NELA
PTLA
SLA
Other
Alternative
Preparation
Programs (e.g.,
NYCLA, NLNS)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
^
^
^
^
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
^
No
Yes
No
No
^
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
^
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
^
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
^
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
^
^
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
NC
Traditional
MSA*
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
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
18
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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
Age Range
Age Median
Male
Female
Black
White
Asian
American Indian
Other Ethnicity
Master’s Degree
All Cohort 1
Interns
25-54
35
30%
70%
45%
46%
3%
2%
4%
60%
(37/62)
NELA
25–48
33
24%
76%
52%
33%
10%
0%
5%
33%
(7/21)
PTLA
29-47
36
29%
71%
57%
38%
0%
0%
5%
71%
(15/21)
SLA
28–54
36
38%
63%
27%
66%
0%
7%
0%
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
19
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table 5. Demographic Data for RLA Cohort 2
Demographic
Characteristic
Age Range
Age Median
Male
Female
Black
White
Asian
American Indian
Other Ethnicity
Master’s Degree
All Cohort 2
Interns
25-59
38
31%
69%
32%
66%
0%
2%
0%
42%
(26/62)
NELA
26-53
36
38%
62%
33%
67%
0%
0%
0%
14%
(3/21)
PTLA
25-59
39
35%
65%
45%
55%
0%
0%
0%
75%
(15/20)
SLA
27-51
39
19%
81%
19%
77%
0%
4%
0%
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.
Table 6. Demographic Data for RLA Cohort 3
Demographic
Characteristic
Age Range
Age Median
Male
Female
Black
White
Asian
American Indian
Other Ethnicity
Master’s Degree
All Cohort 3
Interns
26-49
36
25%
75%
35%
61%
0%
0%
4%
50%
(31/62)
NELA
26-48
35
15%
85%
40%
60%
0%
0%
0%
35%
(7/20)
PTLA
26-49
36
36%
64%
41%
54%
0%
0%
5%
59%
(13/22)
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
SLA
27-48
37
25%
75%
25%
70%
0%
0%
5%
55%
(11/20)
20
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table 7. Demographic Data for RLA Cohorts 1, 2, and 3
Demographic
Characteristic
Age Range
Age Median
Male
Female
Black
White
Asian
American Indian
Other Ethnicity
Master’s Degree
All Cohort
Interns
25-59
36
29%
71%
38%
58%
1%
1%
2%
50%
(94/186)
NELA
(Cohorts
1, 2, and 3)
25-53
35
26%
74%
42%
53%
3%
0%
2%
27%
(17/62)
PTLA
(Cohorts
1, 2, and 3)
25-59
37
33%
67%
48%
49%
0%
0%
3%
68%
(43/63)
SLA
(Cohorts
1, 2, and 3)
27-54
37
27%
73%
24%
71%
0%
3%
2%
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).
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
21
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
22
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
23
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
24
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table 10. RLA Internship Placements: Free/Reduced Lunch, Size, English, and Mathematics
Scores
Placement Site
Characteristic
RLA
NELA
PTLA
% Students
Free/Reduced Lunch SLA
Overall
NELA
PTLA
School Size
SLA
Overall
NELA
PTLA
Reading/English I
SLA
Scores
Overall
NELA
Mathematics/Algebra PTLA
SLA
I Scores
Overall
Cohort 1
(2011-2012)
68.7%
75.8%
68.5%
71.0%
550
579
615
581
59.7%
55.6%
64.6%
59.9%
74.0%
67.3%
70.1%
70.5%
Internship Year
Cohort 2
(2012-2013)
60.2%
66.6%
63.3%
63.4%
668
739
711
706
64.8%
60.9%
66.8%
64.2%
74.8%
71.1%
71.8%
72.6%
Cohort 3
(2013-2014)
62.5%
72.4%
57.8%
64.2%
520
679
662
620
66.7%
58.1%
69.3%
64.7%
71.1%
72.2%
78.6%
74.0%
Average
for Cohorts
1, 2, & 3
63.8%
71.6%
63.2%
66.2%
579
666
663
636
63.7%
58.2%
66.9%
62.9%
73.3%
70.2%
73.5%
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
n=21
6 Principals
Cohort 1
8 Assistant Princ
– June
3 Central Office
2012
2 Teacher/Facilitator
2 Left RLA Region
n=21
0 Principals
Cohort 2
18 Assistant Princ
– June
1 Central Office
2013
2 Teacher/Facilitator
0 Left RLA Region
n=42
TOTALS 6 Principals
(as of
26 Assistant Princ
October
4 Central Office
2013)
4 Teacher/Facilitator
2 Left RLA Region
PTLA Graduates
n=21
3 Principals
14 Assistant Princ
1 Central Office
1 Teacher/Facilitator
2 Left RLA Region
n=20
0 Principals
13 Assistant Princ
2 Central Office
5 Teacher/Facilitator
0 Left RLA Region
n=41
3 Principals
27 Assistant Princ
3 Central Office
6 Teacher/Facilitator
2 Left RLA Region
SLA Graduates
n=20
8 Principals
9 Assistant Princ
1 Central Office
0 Teacher/Facilitator
2 Left RLA Region
n=21
2 Principals
17 Assistant Princ
0 Central Office
2 Teacher/Facilitator
0 Left RLA Region
n=41
10 Principals
26 Assistant Princ
1 Central Office
2 Teacher/Facilitator
2 Left RLA Region
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
Overall
n=62
17 Principals
31 Assistant Princ
5 Central Office
0 Teacher/Facilitator
6 Left RLA Region
n=62
2 Principals
48 Assistant Princ
3 Central Office
9 Teacher/Facilitator
0 Left RLA Region
n=124
19 Principals
(15%)
79 Assistant Princ
(64%)
8 Central Office
(6%)
9 Teacher/Facilitator (10%)
6 Left RLA Region
(5%)
25
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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
% Students
Free/Reduced
Lunch
School Size
English Scores
Mathematics
Scores
RLA
NELA
PTLA
SLA
Overall
NELA
PTLA
SLA
Overall
NELA
PTLA
SLA
Overall
NELA
PTLA
SLA
Overall
Job Placements
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
(Fall 2013)
(Fall 2013)
77.9%
60.8%
74.7%
61.7%
67.4%
66.6%
73.3%
63.0%
480
572
692
804
770
724
647
700
55.9%
66.0%
55.3%
67.8%
65.8%
65.2%
59.0%
66.3%
66.4%
75.1%
68.9%
74.3%
76.3%
72.7%
70.5%
74.0%
Overall
69.3%
68.2%
67.0%
68.2%
526
748
747
674
60.9%
61.6%
65.5%
62.6%
70.7%
71.6%
74.5%
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).
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
26
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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 costeffectiveness analyses of several other RttT initiatives. When completed, this analysis will
provide a basis for value comparisons between RLAs and other models.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
27
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
28
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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.
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.
SLA
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.
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
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
29
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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?
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
30
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
31
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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 lowperforming 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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
32
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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: Midcontinent 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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
33
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
List of Appendices
Appendix A. NCDPI and Z. Smith Reynolds Request for Proposals: Principal Leadership
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
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
34
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Appendix A. NCDPI and Z. Smith Reynolds Request for Proposals: Principal Leadership
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 highimpact 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 lowachieving 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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
35
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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-intime 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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
36
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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)
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
37
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
38
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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 problembased 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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
39
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
40
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
41
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Appendix B. Regional Leadership Academies Biannual Participant Survey
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
42
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
43
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
44
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
45
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
46
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Appendix C. RLA Evaluators’ Observation Log
Date
Monday
March 21, 2011
Monday
April 4, 2011
Monday
May 2, 2011
Saturday
April 30, 2011
Thursday-Friday
May 5–6, 2011
Wednesday
May 11, 2011
Monday
May 16, 2011
Thursday
May 19, 2011
Saturday
May 21, 2011
Monday
May 23, 2011
Wednesday
May 25, 2011
Tuesday
May 31, 2011
Wednesday
June 2, 2011
Thursday
June 16, 2011
Thursday
June 23, 2011
Wednesday
July 6, 2011
Thursday
July 7, 2011
Wednesday
July 13, 2011
Wednesday
July 20, 2011
Thursday
July 21, 2011
Tuesday
July 26, 2011
Time
11:30–
1:00
10:00–
2:00
Place
Abernathy
CSLD
9:00–1:00
CSLD
8:00–3:00
Friday Institute
9:00–3:00
Atlanta
11:00–
4:00
4:00–
10:00
7:30–
12:30
9:00–
12:00
8:00–
Noon
Noon–
5:00
11:30–
4:30
7:30–
12:30
Longleaf
Southern Pines
Fayetteville
ERC
3:00–5:00
2:00–8:00
8:00–2:30
Purpose
Attend meeting to discuss RLA with
Gary, Trip, and Adam—KB & AH
Attend meeting to discuss SOW with
Gary, Trip, and Laura—KB & AH
Attend meeting with Executive Directors
of RLAs and Janice Davis
Observe NELA selection process—KB
Attend SREB Conference on Leadership
Academies—KB
Observe SLA curriculum development
with NYCLA reps—KB
Observe SLA selection process—KB
UNCG
Observe PTLA Advisory Group
meeting—KB
Fayetteville
ERC
Observe SLA selection process—AH
DPI
SERVE
Friday Institute
UNCG
UNCG
Longleaf
Southern Pines
UNCG
Piney Lake
8:30–4:00
UNCG
11:30–
4:30
UNCG
8:30–4:00
NCCAT
Cullowhee
8:30–4:30
UNCG
7:30–
12:30
UNCG
Present to June Atkinson’s cabinet
meeting (NCDPI)—KB
Attend/present on Fall RttT data
collection—KB & AH
Present to Quality Assurance
Committee—KB & AH
Observe PTLA Advisory Group
meeting—KB
Observe PTLA Advisory Group
meeting—AH
Observe SLA kick-off program and
information meeting—KB
Observe PTLA kick-off activities: Ropes
Course (Team Quest)—KB
Observe PTLA kick-off activities: Q&A,
Ropes Course follow-ups—AH
Observe PTLA Summer Ramp Up:
School Leadership Seminar—KB
Observe SLA Summer Institute—AH
Observe PTLA Summer Ramp Up:
School Leadership Seminar—AH
Observe PTLA Summer Ramp Up:
School Leadership Seminar—KB
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
47
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Date
Tuesday
July 26, 2011
Wednesday
July 27, 2011
Tuesday
August 2, 2011
Friday
August 5, 2011
Monday
August 8, 2011
Tuesday
August 9, 2011
Wednesday
August 10, 2011
Thursday
August 18, 2011
Friday
August 26, 2011
Tuesday
August 30, 2011
Tuesday
September 6, 2011
Monday
September 19, 2011
Wednesday
September 21, 2011
Thursday
September 22, 2011
Tuesday
October 11, 2011
Wednesday
October 12, 2011
Thursday
October 13, 2011
Time
12:30–
5:00
12:00–
9:00
Place
Sandhills Com
College
Purpose
Observe SLA Summer Institute—KB
Friday Institute
Attend/present RttT SOW impact
meeting—KB
9:00–3:00
Sandhills Com
College
Observe SLA Summer Institute—AH
9:00–3:00
Raleigh
7:30–3:00
Friday Institute
9:00–
11:00
UNCG
9:00–3:00
8:30–3:30
9:00–3:00
4:30–9:30
8:30–5:30
8:30–
11:00
8:00–5:00
Noon–
5:00
8:00–6:00
8:00–5:00
8:00–4:00
Pinckney Ac,
Carthage, NC
UNCG
Room 401
UNCG
Friday
Institute
Rocky Mount,
NC
Hunt Institute,
Durham
Pinckney
Academy, NC
Triad Center
Greensboro
Rocky Mount,
NC
Pinckney
Academy, NC
Graham
Middle, ABSS
Observe NELA Mentor Principal and
Coach Training—AH
Observe NELA Cohort II Orientation—
KB
Observe PTLA Advisory Team
meeting—AH
Observe SLA Mentor Principal
Training—KB
Observe First Fall Session PTLA
Internship Seminar—AH
Observe PTLA Curriculum Writing
Session (9-11)—KB & AH (RLA
planning session)
Present to Quality Assurance Committee
(QAC)—KB & AH
Observe NELA Distinguished Leaders in
Practice—KB
Attend/present RLA Quality Assurance
Committee (QAC) meeting—KB
Observe SLA Intern Seminar: Guest
Speaker Richard Schwartz—KB
Observe PTLA Intern Seminar: EDUC
690—KB
Observe NELA Formative Assessments
of Fellows—KB
Observe SLA: DPI Principal Evaluation
Trainers—KB
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
Friday
November 4, 2011
11:00–
4:00
McKimmon
Center, NC
State, Raleigh
NCDPI,
Raleigh
Attend/present RLA Quality Assurance
Committee (QAC)—KB & AH
Attend/present RttT meeting—KB
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
48
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Date
Friday
November 18, 2011
Time
Place
1:00–4:00
Pittsburgh, PA
Kiser Middle
School,
Greensboro
Richmond
County,
Hamlet, NC
Thursday
December 15, 2011
8:00–
12:30
Friday
December 16, 2011
9:00–
12:30
December 20, 2011
1:30-5:00
Chapel Hill
Monday
January 9, 2012
Wednesday
January 18, 2012
12:30–
4:30
9:00–
12:00
Moore County
District Office
Monday
January 30, 2012
8:45–1:30
Monday
February 6, 2012
Thursday
February 16, 2012
Friday
February 17, 2012
Wednesday
February 22, 2012
Tuesday
February 28, 2012
Thursday
March 8, 2012
Tuesday
March 13, 2012
Friday
March 23, 2012
9:30–1:00
12:00–
5:00
8:00–1:00
8:00–1:00
12:30–
5:00
12:00–
5:00
5:00–
10:00
8:00–1:00
Wednesday
April 25, 2012
8:00–
12:00
Thursday
April 26, 2012
Monday
April 30, 2012
Wednesday
May 2, 2012
Noon–
5:00
9:00–1:00
June 24–29, 2012
9:00–5:00
8:00–2:00
UNCG SOE
Friday
Institute,
Raleigh, NC
NC DPI
Raleigh
Greensboro,
NC
Rocky Mount,
NC
Sanford, NC
Durham, NC
Greensboro,
NC
Sanford, NC
Raleigh, NC
Moore County
Alamance
County
NC DPI
Raleigh
Rocky Mount,
NC
Ocracoke
Island, NC
Purpose
Attend/present UCEA Conference
presentation regarding NC RLAs—KB
Observe PTLA school site visit to Kiser
Middle School—AH
Observe SLA Intern Seminar: Switch
month info and gathering data—AH
Present Regional Leadership Academies
Cost-Effectiveness Framework Report—
KB & AH
Observe SLA Advisory Board meeting—
KB
Observe PTLA Advisory Board
meeting—KB
Observe NELA Intern Seminar regarding
leadership and technology—KB
Present NCDPI presentation (RLA
CEA)—KB
Observe PTLA site visit at Hunter
Elementary—KB
Observe NELA Intern Session regarding
Facilitative Leadership—KB
Observe SLA site visit to JR Ingram
Elementary School—KB
Attend/present at QAC meeting at Hunt
Institute—KB
Observe PTLA intern session with
Superintendents—KB
Observe SLA School Board presentation
at Lee County High School—KB
Observe NELA intern session—KB
Observe SLA intern session at Pickney
Academy (interviewing and resumes)—
KB
Observe PTLA site visit to Haw River
Elementary School—KB
Present to NCDPI—KB
Observe NELA intern session at
Gateway Technology—KB
Observe SLA’s Week 5 of intensive
prep—KB
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
49
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Date
Time
Place
Tuesday
July 10, 2012
11:00–
1:00
CSLD, Chapel
Hill
Thursday
July 12, 2012
8:00–1:00
UNCG – SOE
Greensboro
Thursday
July 26, 2012
9:00–2:00
CSLD, Chapel
Hill
Thursday
August 2, 2012
Wednesday
August 29, 2012
Thursday
September 13, 2012
Thursday
September 20, 2012
8:00–2:00
8:00–1:00
2:00–8:00
11:30–
4:30
Moore County
District Office
Greensboro,
NC
Rocky Mount,
NC
Pinckney
Academy,
Carthage, NC
Hairston
Middle,
Greensboro,
NC
Friday
Institute,
Raleigh, NC
Purpose
Attend/present meeting with NC BOE
Rep Steve Jackson and NCDPI (Lynne
Johnson? Freda Lee?)—KB
Observe PTLA Cohort II Seminar on
School Turnaround—KB
Attend/present RttT team meeting
(provide updates on RLAs and DST)—
KB
Observe SLA Cohort II Mentor Training
Session I—KB
Observe PTLA Cohort II Seminar on
Challenges—KB
Observe NELA Cohort I Support
Seminar—KB
Observe SLA Cohort II Seminar on
Legal Issues and Legislative Policy
Updates—KB
Observe PTLA Cohort II site visit on
Learning Walks and Nine Best
Practices—KB
Wednesday
October 3, 2012
7:30–1:30
Monday
October 8, 2012
8:00–
12:00
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
2:30–7:30
Pinckney
Academy,
Carthage, NC
Observe SLA Cohort I Support
Seminar—KB
Thursday
October 18, 2012
Observe NELA Cohort III
Understanding By Design Training—KB
TOTAL = 27 formal observations plus 10
formal meetings attended or presented to
between March 2011 and October 2013
Friday
November 2, 2012
8:00–2:00
Wednesday
November 7, 2012
8:00–1:00
Thursday
November 8, 2012
11:30–
4:30
Saturday
November 17, 2012
12:00–
4:00
Friday
Institute,
Raleigh, NC
Eastlawn
Elementary,
Burlington
Pinckney
Academy,
Carthage, NC
Denver, CO
Observe NELA Cohort III Digital Story
Telling Workshop—KB
Observe PTLA Cohort II school site
visit—KB
Observe SLA Cohort II Seminar—KB
Present at the UCEA Conference—KB
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
50
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Date
Time
Wednesday
November 28, 2012
1:00–8:00
Tuesday
January 8, 2013
8:00-3:00
Wednesday
January 16, 2013
11:304:30
Monday
January 28, 2013
12:003:00
Tuesday
February 5, 2013
12:004:00
Thursday
February 7, 2013
12:004:00
Friday
March 1, 2013
Wednesday
March 6, 2013
8:00-1:00
9:00-2:00
Place
Friday
Institute,
Raleigh, NC
Carolina,
Pinehurst, NC
Southern
Middle,
Greensboro
NC DPI,
Raleigh, NC
Friday
Institute,
Raleigh, NC
Pinckney
Academy,
Carthage, NC
UNCG,
Greensboro
SBE,
Raleigh, NC
Pinckney
Academy,
Carthage, NC
Friday
Institute,
Raleigh, NC
Friday
Institute,
Raleigh, NC
Williams High
School,
Burlington
Thursday
March 14, 2013
2:00-7:00
Tuesday
March 19, 2013
8:0011:00
Tuesday
April 16, 2013
12:005:00
Wednesday
April 17, 2013
8:00-1:00
Friday
April 19, 2013
8:00-1:00
Wednesday
May 8, 2013
9:00-1:00
Thursday
May 23, 2013
1:00-5:00
Tuesday
June 18, 2013
11:003:00
Burlington, NC
Wednesday
July 17, 2013
9:00-1:00
UNCG,
Greensboro
Purpose
Observe combined RLA event—KB
Present at NC Legislative Retreat – KB
Observe PTLA Cohort II Site Visit to
Southern Guilford Middle School – KB
Present RLA Year I Report to DPI – KB
Observe NELA Cohort III Seminar – KB
Observe SLA Cohort II Seminar – KB
Observe PTLA Advisory Meeting – KB
Present RLA Year 1 Report to SBE – KB
Observe SLA Cohort 1 Support Meeting
– KB
Observe NELA Cohort II – KB
Observe NELA Cohort III – KB
Observe PTLA Cohort II Site Visit – KB
District Office,
Lillington, NC
Observe SLA Cohort I and II
Storytelling – KB
Gateway Tech
Rocky Mount
Pinckney
Academy,
Carthage, NC
Observe NELA Cohort II Diversity – KB
Observe SLA Cohort II Diversity and
Judge Manning – KB
Attend/present at Sustainability/Grant
meeting with PTLA – KB
Observe PTLA Cohort III – KB
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
51
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Date
Time
Thursday
July 18, 2013
9:00-1:00
Wednesday
July 31, 2013
10:002:00
Thursday
September 5, 2013
11:004:00
Tuesday
September 10, 2013
11:005:00
Thursday
Noon-4:00
September 12, 2013
Wednesday
Noon-5:00
September 25, 2013
Tuesday
October 1, 2013
Noon-4:00
Wednesday
October 16, 2013
9:00-1:00
Thursday
October 31, 2013
Noon-4:00
Place
Pinckney
Academy,
Carthage, NC
Gateway
Technology
Center, Rocky
Mount, NC
Friday
Institute,
Raleigh, NC
Gateway
Technology
Center, Rocky
Mount, NC
Pinckney
Academy,
Carthage, NC
Hunter
Elementary,
Greensboro
Garner Middle,
Raleigh
UNCG,
Greensboro
Pinckney
Academy,
Carthage, NC
Purpose
Observe SLA Cohort III – KB
Observe NELA Cohort III – KB
Present RLA info at RttT Evaluation
Meeting – KB
Observe NELA Cohort III – KB
Observe SLA Cohort III – KB
Observe PTLA Cohort III Site Visit –
KB
Observe NELA Cohort III Site Visit –
KB
Observe PTLA Cohort III – KB
Observe SLA Cohort III – KB
TOTAL = 27 formal observations plus 6
formal meetings attended or presented to
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
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
52
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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 lowperforming 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-intime learning for immediate problems and ongoing skill development;
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
53
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
54
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
55
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Research Questions and Anticipated Data Sources
Projected/Proposed Analysis Tool
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)
X
X
X
Quant
Analysis
Administrative Data
Review
Accounting
Data Review
Evaluation Question
Major/Overall Questions
What is the nature and quality of the experience: a) for students and b) for
participating teachers?
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, multistep 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
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
Do RLA graduates find placements in targeted schools/districts?
X
X
Are RLAs cost-effective relative to the alternatives?
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
X
X
56
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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:


12
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.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
57
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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 ‘ingredientsbased’ 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 costeffectiveness 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
Final 2013 Activity Report
Final Report
11/30/2012
11/30/2013
4/30/2014
13
Levin, H. M., and P. J. McEwan. (2001). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Application, 2nd ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
58
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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
Mark Barfield
Internship Placement
Northampton High
LEA
Northampton
Mentor Principal
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
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
59
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table E2. PTLA Cohort 1 Internship Placements
Name
Jamyle Acevedo
Internship Placement
LEA
Page High
Guilford
Mentor Principal
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
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
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
Dr. Shelia Gorham
60
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table E3. SLA Cohort 1 Internship Placements
Name
Angela D. Wright
Internship Placement
Harnett Primary
LEA
Harnett
Mentor Principal
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
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
61
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table E4. NELA Cohort 2 Internship Placements
Name
Amy Pearce
Internship Placement
Stocks Elementary
LEA
Edgecombe
Mentor Principal
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
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
Krista Fasioli
Parker Middle
Tim Mudd
DS Johnson Elementary
Nash/Rocky Mount Ann Mitchell
Anthony
Nash/Rocky Mount
Nottingham
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
Ron Byrd
Marc Whichard
Elizabeth Payne Moran West Oxford Elementary
Granville
Melody Wilson
Lauren Greenhill
Northampton
Kevin Edwards
Belmont Elementary
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
62
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table E5. PTLA Cohort 2 Internship Placements
Name
Kristen Gravely
Internship Placement
LEA
Williams High
Alamance-Burlington
Mentor Principal
Joe Ferrell
Thomas Kazimir
Graham High
Alamance-Burlington
Charlotte Holmes
Dana Roseboro
Alamance-Burlington
Whitney Oakley
Guilford
Gerald O’Donnell
Kevin Conaway
Eastlawn Elem
Montlieu Academy of
Technology Elem
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
Ben Cawley
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
63
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table E6. SLA Cohort 2 Internship Placements
Name
Elizabeth Cole
Internship Placement
Bladenboro Primary
LEA
Bladen
Mentor Principal
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
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
64
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table E7. NELA Cohort 3 Internship Placements
Name
Internship Placement
LEA
Mentor Principal
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
Roanoke Rapids
Thomas Davis
Weldon City
Chris Butler
Nafeesha Irby
Chaloner Middle
Roanoke Valley Early
College
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
Jennifer Wilker
Warren New Tech High
Warren
Julie Shields
Iris CastellonDethmers
Viola Gilbert
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
65
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table E8. PTLA Cohort 3 Internship Placements
Name
Aaron Bailey
Internship Placement
LEA
Mentor Principal
North Asheboro
Asheboro City
Candace Call
Middle
High Point Central
Guilford
Bob Christina
High
Hanes Magnet
Winston-Salem/Forsyth Melita Wise
Clinton Baron
Wiley Middle
Melissa Allred
Karen Anderson
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
Ged O’Donnell
Traci Horton
Montlieu Elementary
Guilford
Peeler Open
Guilford
Elementary
Haw River Elementary Alamance-Burlington
Candace Hudson
Hunter Elementary
Guilford
Michelle Thompson
Malinda Kerns
Hall-Woodward Elem
Winston-Salem/Forsyth Celena Tribby
Noelle Leslie
Northeast High
Guilford
Duane Lewis
Welborn Middle
Bobbie Lynch
Walkertown Middle
Fabby Wiliams
Naquita BrewingtonGuilford
McCormick
Winston-Salem/Forsyth Piper Hendrix
Barbara McRae
Kiser Middle
Guilford
Sharon McCants
Yajaira Owens
Loflin Elementary
Kernersville
Elementary
Dudley High
Asheboro City
Paula Owens
Old Town Elementary
Winston-Salem/Forsyth Rusty Hall
Hillcrest Elementary
Alamance-Burlington
Madison Hester
Teresa Rose
Christopher Scott
Michelle Varoutsos
Ashley
Westmoreland
Mark Harris
Jennifer Reed
Winston-Salem/Forsyth Becky Carter
Guilford
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
Jesse Pratt
Julie Bethea
66
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table E9. SLA Cohort 3 Internship Placements
Name
Internship Placement
LEA
Mentor Principal
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
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
67
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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
11 Priority Schools
9 Schools Progress
1 No Recognition
0 Schools Distinction
2009–10
5 Priority Schools
14 Schools Progress
0 No Recognition
2 Schools Distinction
2010–11
4 Priority Schools
15 Schools Progress
1 No Recognition
2 Schools Distinction
9 Counties and
# Interns:
16/21 Met AYP
5/21 Met AYP
1/21 Met AYP
 Hertford = 4
 Roanoke
Rapids = 4
 Halifax = 3
 Warren = 3
 Bertie = 2
 Northampton = 2
 Franklin = 1
 Johnston = 1
 Wake = 1
Reading/English I
Range = 45.5%–81.5%
Average = 56.7%
Reading/English I
Range = 43.3%–85.9%
Average = 60.7%
Reading/English I
Range = 43.6%–80.4%
Average = 59.7%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 29.5%–87.0%
Average = 66.8%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 52.1%–89.5%
Average = 73.9%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 60.8%–87.7%
Average = 74.0%
% Students F/RL
Range = 32.0%–95.8%
Average = 68.1%
% Students F/RL
Range = 29.6%–92.8%
Average = 67.4%
% Students F/RL
Range = 28.6%–95.3%
Average = 70.5%
% Students
F/RL = 68.7%
School Size
Range = 178–1,124
Average = 554
School Size
Range = 182–1,179
Average = 548
School Size
Range = 183–1,132
Average = 547
21 Interns
School Size = 550
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%
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
68
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table F2. PTLA Cohort 1 Internship Placement Schools*
PTLA Cohort 1
2008–09
5 Low Performing
10 Priority Schools
7 Schools Progress
2 No Recognition
0 Schools Distinction
2009–10
0 Low Performing
13 Priority Schools
9 Schools Progress
1 No Recognition
1 Schools Distinction
2010–11
0 Low Performing
10 Priority Schools
11 Schools Progress
1 No Recognition
1 Schools Distinction
4 Counties and
# Interns:
14/21 Met AYP
7/21 Met AYP
2/21 Met AYP
 Guilford = 10
 Winston-Salem
Forsyth = 7
 AlamanceBurlington = 3
 Asheboro City
Schools = 1
Reading/English I
Range = 24.1%–75.6%
Average = 49.3%
Reading/English I
Range = 25.7%–82.8%
Average = 56.0%
Reading/English I
Range = 32.3%–82.0%
Average = 55.6%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 20.0%–85.1%
Average= 60.0%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 37.3%–81.4%
Average= 65.7%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 36.0%–86.7%
Average= 67.3%
% Students F/RL
Range = 39.3%–100%
Average = 74.1%
% Students F/RL
Range = 39.0%–98.9%
Average = 75.1%
% Students F/RL
Range = 43.5%–98.0%
Average = 78.2%
School Size = 579
School Size
Range = 252–1,756
Average = 567
School Size
Range = 244–1,764
Average = 587
School Size
Range = 213–1,806
Average = 584
Total change in %
over three years
Reading/English I= +6.3%
Mathematics/Algebra I= +7.3%
21 Interns
% Students
F/RL = 75.8%
Range = -12.0% to +24.5%
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 DiggsLatham were two separate schools until 2010–11 when they merged.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
69
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table F3. SLA Cohort 1 Internship Placement Schools*
SLA Cohort 1
2008–09
2 Low Performing
3 Priority Schools
13 Schools Progress
1 No Recognition
0 Schools Distinction
2009–10
1 Low Performing
3 Priority Schools
12 Schools Progress
1 No Recognition
2 Schools Distinction
2010–11
1 Low Performing
2 Priority Schools
12 Schools Progress
3 No Recognition
2 Schools Distinction
12 Counties and
# Interns:
11/19 Met AYP
8/19 Met AYP
3/20 Met AYP












Reading/English I
Range = 41.0%–71.7%
Average = 58.3%
Reading/English I
Range = 48.9%–83.9%
Average = 64.2%
Reading/English I
Range = 43.6%–88.5%
Average = 64.6%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 33.9%–85.6%
Average = 68.9%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 26.1%–90.5%
Average = 72.1%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 22.1%–86.9%
Average = 70.1%
% Students F/RL
Range = 26.8%–87.8%
Average = 66.5%
% Students F/RL
Range = 30.8%–91.9%
Average = 68.2%
% Students F/RL
Range = 35.1%–88.2%
Average = 70.9%
School Size
Range = 186–1,162
Average = 638
School Size
Range = 160–1,174
Average = 607
School Size
Range = 159–1,181
Average = 600
20 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
Total change in %
over three years
Reading/English I= +6.3%
Mathematics/Algebra I= +1.2%
Range = -12.2% to +18.9%
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
70
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table F4. NELA Cohort 2 Internship Placement Schools*
NELA Cohort 2
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
1 Low Performing
3 Priority Schools
11 Schools Progress
3 No Recognition
1 School of Distinction
0 Low Performing
0 Low Performing
3 Priority Schools
2 Priority Schools
11 Schools Progress
12 Schools Progress
4 No Recognition
2 No Recognition
1 School of Distinction 3 School of Distinction
7 Counties and
# schools of hire:**
14/19 Met AYP
6/19 Met AYP
2/19 Met AYP
 Roanoke
Rapids = 1
 Franklin = 1
 Nash = 10
 Edgecombe=3
 Granville= 3
 Vance= 1
 Martin = 2
Reading/English I
Range = 21.10%–
74.80%
Average = 61.05%
Reading/English I
Range = 37.40%–
77.30%
Average = 63.09%
Reading/English I
Range = 44.40%–
79.30%
Average = 64.78%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 46.70%–
89.40%
Average = 71.65%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 46.30%–
92.40%
Average = 74.34%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 39.90%–
90.50%
Average = 74.80%
% Students
F/RL = 60.2%
% Students F/RL
Range = 23.90%–
97.06%
Average = 55.92%
% Students F/RL
Range = 33.33%–
99.75%
Average = 59.70%
% Students F/RL
Range = 40.23%–
96.27%
Average = 65.03%
School Size
Range= 262 to 1,180
Average = 674.50
School Size
Range = 256 to 1,184
Average = 667.25
School Size
Range = 355 to 1,231
Average = 663.70
21 Interns
School Size = 668
Total change in %
over three years
Reading/English I = +3.74%
Range = -2.4% to +12.9%
Mathematics/Algebra I = +3.15%
Range = -8.1% to +16.3%
*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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
71
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table F5. PTLA Cohort 2 Internship Placement Schools
PTLA Cohort 2
20 Interns
4 Counties and
# Interns:
 Guilford = 10
 Winston-Salem
Forsyth = 7
 AlamanceBurlington = 3
% Students
F/RL = 66.6%
School Size = 739
Total change in %
over three years
2008–09
4 Low Performing
4 Priority Schools
9 Schools Progress
3 No Recognition
0 School of Distinction
2009–10
0 Low Performing
5 Priority Schools
11 Schools Progress
2 No Recognition
2 School of Distinction
2010–11
0 Low Performing
5 Priority Schools
13 Schools Progress
1 No Recognition
1 School Distinction
10/20 Met AYP
3/20 Met AYP
1/20 Met AYP
Reading/English I
Range = 33.50%–
75.60%
Average = 56.16%
Reading/English I
Range = 38.80%–
81.30%
Average = 60.47%
Reading/English I
Range = 42.50%–
82.00%
Average = 60.95%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 25.40%–
85.10%
Average = 63.37%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 40.00%–
87.00%
Average = 69.82%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 54.10%–
81.90%
Average = 71.14%
% Students F/RL
Range = 30.60%–
92.94%
Average = 64.06%
% Students F/RL
Range = 31.30%–
97.30%
Average = 65.71%
% Students F/RL
Range = 40.53%–
93.36%
Average = 69.91%
School Size
Range = 363 to 1,469
Average = 746.25
School Size
Range = 343 to 1,386
Average = 728.95
School Size
Range = 347 to 1,365
Average = 726.40
Reading/English I = +4.79%
Range = -4.2% to +17.3%
Mathematics/Algebra I = +7.77%
Range = -8.2% to +50.0%
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
72
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table F6. SLA Cohort 2 Internship Placement Schools*
SLA Cohort 2
21 Interns
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
Total change in %
over three years
2008–09
1 Low Performing
6 Priority Schools
11 Schools Progress
2 No Recognition
0 School of Distinction
1 Honor School of
Excellence
10/21 Met AYP
2009–10
0 Low Performing
4 Priority Schools
13 Schools Progress
1 No Recognition
1 School of Distinction
1 Honor School of
Excellence
6/20 Met AYP
2010–11
0 Low Performing
2 Priority Schools
12 Schools Progress
3 No Recognition
2 Schools Distinction
1 Honor School of
Excellence
0/20 Met AYP
Reading/English I
Range = 30.00%–
85.90%
Average = 57.58%
Reading/English I
Range = 10.00%–
87.50%
Average = 61.32%
Reading/English I**
Range = 53.30%–
86.80%
Average = 66.77%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 8.70%–93.10%
Average = 63.46%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 25.00%–
93.70%
Average = 69.71%
Mathematics/Algebra
I
Range = 30.40 %–
92.40%
Average = 71.81%
% Students F/RL
Range = 24.91%–
79.26%
Average = 61.36%
School Size
Range = 217 to 1,472
Average = 712.86
% Students F/RL
Range = 25.00%–
84.69%
Average = 62.87%
School Size
Range = 205 to 1,619
Average = 703.45
% Students F/RL
Range = 24.30%–
85.23%
Average = 65.77%
School Size
Range = 210 to 1,615
Average = 716.68
Reading/English I = +9.19%
Range = -1.9% to +51.3%
Mathematics/Algebra I = +8.35%
Range = -2.9% to +38.2%
*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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
73
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table F7. NELA Cohort 3 Internship Placement Schools
NELA Cohort 3
20 Interns
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%
2009–10
2010–11
2011–12
4 Priority Schools
12 Schools of Progress
2 No Recognition
2 Schools Distinction
4 Priority Schools
9 Schools of Progress
2 No Recognition
4 Schools Distinction
1 Low Performing
4 Priority Schools
11 Schools of Progress
2 No Recognition
3 Schools Distinction
11 Met AYP
3 Met AYP
7 Met AMO
(formerly AYP)
Reading/English I
Range = 36.5%–80.5%
Average = 64.2%
Reading/English I
Range = 40%–80.6%
Average = 62.49%
Reading/English I
Range = 44.4%–85.3%
Average = 66.7%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 20.7%–92.4%
Average = 71.5%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 6.3%–90.7%
Average = 69.2%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 36.4%–94.1%
Average = 71.1%
% Students F/RL
Range = 32.4%–89.8%
Average = 58.6%
% Students F/RL
Range = 34.1%–92.2%
Average = 62.5%
% Students F/RL
Range = 30.8%–94.8%
Average = 66.3%
School Size
Range = 64-931
Average = 526
School Size
Range = 112–914
Average = 530
School Size
Range = 135–852
Average = 505
School Size = 520
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%
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
74
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table F8. PTLA Cohort 3 Internship Placement Schools
PTLA Cohort 3
2009–10
7 Priority Schools
14 Schools of Progress
0 No Recognition
1 Schools Distinction
2010–11
4 Priority Schools
14 Schools of Progress
3 No Recognition
1 Schools Distinction
2011–12
4 Priority Schools
11 Schools of Progress
5 No Recognition
1 Schools Distinction
1 Low Performing
4 Counties and
# Interns:
9 Met AYP
1 Met AYP
4 Met AMO
(formerly AYP)
 Guilford = 11
 Winston-Salem
Forsyth = 6
 Alamance
Burlington = 3
 Asheboro City
Schools = 2
Reading/English I
Range = 42.9%–83.9%
Average = 58.6%
Reading/English I
Range = 41.8%–83.9%
Average = 59.2%
Reading/English I
Range = 39.3%–82.8%
Average = 58.1%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 38.2%–87.7%
Average = 71.2%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 39.9%–87.5%
Average = 71.4%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 52.8%–87.5%
Average = 72.2%
% Students F/RL
Range = 23.5%–96.0%
Average = 67.0%
% Students F/RL
Range = 28.9%–97.0%
Average = 74.5%
% Students F/RL
Range = 28.5%–
97.72%
Average = 75.8%
School Size = 679
School Size
Range = 348-1493
Average = 669
School Size
Range = 357–1449
Average = 680
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%
22 Interns
% Students
F/RL = 72.4%
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
School Size
Range = 343–1373
Average = 689
75
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table F9. SLA Cohort3 Internship Placement Schools*
SLA Cohort 3
20 Interns
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
Total change in %
over three years
2009–10
3 Priority Schools
9 Schools of Progress
2 No Recognition
5 Schools of Distinction
2010–11
1 Priority Schools
6 Schools Progress
8 No Recognition
4 Schools of Distinction
2011–12
1 Priority Schools
11 Schools Progress
4 No Recognition
2 Schools of Distinction
1 Honor School of
Excellence
7 Met AMO
(formerly AYP)
7 Met AYP
1 Met AYP
Reading/English I
Range = 48.8%–89.6%
Average = 67.9%
Reading/English I
Range = 52.4%–88.5%
Average = 68.7%
Reading/English I
Range = 48.8%–93.5%
Average = 69.3%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 64.1%–94.8%
Average = 75.7%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 65.6%–91.9%
Average = 76.4%
Mathematics/Algebra I
Range = 57.4%–91.6%
Average = 78.6%
% Students F/RL
Range = 24.0%–85.4%
Average = 56.9%
% Students F/RL
Range = 24.3%–91.1%
Average = 60.6%
% Students F/RL
Range = 27.2%–92.8%
Average = 60.6%
School Size
Range = 205–1348
Average = 669
School Size
Range = 210–1341
Average = 658
School Size
Range = 209-1361
Average = 659
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
76
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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
Mark Barfield
School of Placement
Northampton High School
Annabel Bello
Belmont Elementary School
Melissa Harris
Richardson
Erica Staine
Shoulders
Roanoke Rapids High
School
Mariam Boyd Elementary
School
Ahoskie Elementary School
Hertford High School
Hollister Elementary School
Bertie Middle School
South Johnston High School
South Warren Elementary
School
AB Combs Magnet
Elementary School
Bertie Middle School
Bearfield Primary School
Mariam Boyd Elementary
School
Riverview Elementary
School
Long Mill Elementary
School
Hope Walker
Belmont Elementary School
Yolanda Wiggins
Hollister Elementary School
Cecilya Williams
Chaloner Middle School
Ryan Hurley
DeMetra Lassiter
Mark Long
Douglas Miller
Carol Mizelle
Sean Murphy
Tracey Neal
Erin Swanson
Gonzalo Pitpit
Kim Scott
Ebony Spivey
Jason
Mae Rose
Christina Williams
Shelley Williams
Central Elementary School
Hollister Elementary School
LEA
Northampton
Roanoke
Rapids
Roanoke
Rapids
Total Change in
Percentages
English I/
Algebra I/
Reading
Mathematics
26.10%
23.20%
0.70%
-0.50%
7.30%
6.80%
Warren
4.20%
2.00%
Hertford
Hertford
Halifax
Bertie
Johnston
5.90%
5.20%
-1.90%
0.90%
-1.80%
14.30%
33.80%
4.00%
7.80%
1.50%
Warren
2.90%
19.80%
Wake
2.60%
0.00%
Bertie
Hertford
0.90%
5.10%
7.80%
11.40%
Warren
4.20%
2.00%
Hertford
-1.90%
2.50%
Franklin
4.10%
4.30%
0.70%
-0.50%
-1.90%
4.00%
4.80%
6.80%
-3.10%
-1.90%
-3.30%
4.00%
Roanoke
Rapids
Halifax
Roanoke
Rapids
Northampton
Halifax
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
77
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G2. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, PTLA, Total Change in Percentages, 2008–2011
Name
Jamyle Acevedo
(“Kathy”)
School of Placement
LEA
Total Change in
Percentages
English I/
Algebra I/
Reading
Mathematics
Page High School
GCS
10.90%
12.00%
Adrea Alexander
Hunter Elementary School
GCS
24.50%
20.70%
Forest Park Elementary School
WSFC
8.70%
13.50%
13.20%
4.00%
2.60%
-5.40%
16.90%
22.20%
Michelle Breen
Atkins High School—
Computer Technology
Atkins High School—
Pre-Engineering
Atkins High School—
Biotechnology
WSFC
Jason Cayton (“Todd”)
Wiley Elementary School
GCS
9.50%
16.30%
Ronnie Christian
Northwest Middle School
WSFC
0.20%
5.00%
Kiser Middle School
GCS
2.90%
0.30%
Graham Middle School
ABS
1.90%
0.80%
Diggs-Latham Elementary
School—Diggs*
Diggs-Latham Elementary
School—Latham*
0.50%
5.90%
WSFC
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%
Jones Elementary School
GCS
-3.80%
-4.10%
Grove Park Elementary School
ABS
-12.00%
-2.80%
Thomas Brookshire
(“Jeff”)
Amy Day
Melvin Diggs
Cassandra Dobson
Cynthia White
Hollis Wroblewski
(“Holly”)
*Diggs and Latham were separate schools; merged for the 2010–11 school year.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
78
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G3. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, SLA, Total Change in Percentages, 2008–2011
Name
Angela D. Wright
Robert Forrest Breyer
Dante Pool
Jennifer C. Purvis
Maresa Dutton
Phillips
Lawrence Leroy
Smalls Ii
Lamonica Tillery
Evan L. Roush
Adam Michael
Mowery
Amy Lynn Parsons
David Renninger
Total Change in
Percentages
English I/
Algebra I/
Reading Mathematics
School of Placement
LEA
Harnett Primary School
Harnett
-12.20%
-21.00%
Harnett
N/A
N/A
Moore
-3.20%
-9.10%
Union Pines High School
Moore
16.80%
25.80%
Anson High School
Anson
18.90%
-11.80%
Cumberland
5.70%
9.50%
Cumberland
15.60%
12.70%
Cumberland
3.00%
12.60%
Cumberland
4.40%
3.60%
Montgomery
9.80%
-3.00%
Hoke
7.50%
3.00%
North Harnett Primary
School*
Robbins Elementary
School
Spring Lake Middle
School
Elizabeth Cashwell
Elementary School
Luscille Souders
Elementary School
Margaret Willis
Elementary School
East Montgomery High
School
Sandy Grove Elementary
School
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%
Sanlee Middle School
Lee
5.70%
9.40%
Robeson
3.80%
-11.60%
Robeson
5.90%
1.90%
Richmond
N/A
N/A
Scotland
11.90%
9.40%
Elizabeth Faulk
Bridges
Cynthia Ann Lewis
Tara Dee Bullard
Joyce Morgan McRae
Barbara DeniseAdams
South Robeson High
School
Pembroke Elementary
School
East Rockingham
Elementary School**
Pate Gardner Elementary
School
*Since 2009, this school has been K–2 only.
**Just opened in the 2010–11 school year.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
79
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G4. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, NELA, 2008–09 School Data
School of
Placement
Northampton High
School
Belmont
Elementary School
Roanoke Rapids
High School
Mariam Boyd
Elementary School
Ahoskie
Elementary School
Hertford High
School
Hollister
Elementary School
Bertie Middle
School
South Johnston
High School
South Warren
Elementary School
AB Combs Magnet
Elementary School
Bertie Middle
School
Bearfield Primary
School
Mariam Boyd
Elementary School
Riverview
Elementary School
Long Mill
Elementary School
Belmont
Elementary School
Hollister
Elementary School
Chaloner Middle
School
Central Elementary
School
Hollister
Elementary School
English I/
Reading
Algebra
I/
Mathematics
Designation
53.20%
48.20%
Priority School
61.50%
78.60%
School of Progress
73.10%
55.40%
55.90%
AYP
Not Met
(6 of 13 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
64.50%
451
Met 19 of 19 Targets
59.00%
782
No Recognition
Not Met
(11 of 15 Targets Met)
32.60%
833
69.10%
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
92.40%
367
53.10%
64.00%
Priority School
Met 21 of 21 Targets
73.60%
480
62.10%
29.50%
Priority School
Not Met
(9 of 15 Targets Met)
64.20%
900
45.50%
62.70%
Priority School
Met 17 of 17 Targets
72.80%
234
46.70%
72.50%
Priority School
Met 21 of 21 Targets
80.10%
710
81.50%
71.90%
School of Progress
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
32.00%
1124
45.50%
57.60%
Priority School
Met 13 of 13 Targets
94.90%
188
73.10%
87.00%
School of Progress
Met 29 of 29 Targets
36.80%
828
46.70%
72.50%
Priority School
Met 21 of 21 Targets
80.10%
710
47.50%
63.90%
Priority School
Met 15 of 15 Targets
90.40%
744
55.90%
69.10%
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
92.40%
367
45.50%
58.30%
Priority School
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
95.80%
441
69.30%
82.40%
School of Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
40.70%
447
61.50%
78.60%
School of Progress
Met 19 of 19 Targets
59.00%
782
45.50%
62.70%
Priority School
Met 17 of 17 Targets
72.80%
234
62.70%
80.90%
School of Progress
Met 21 of 21 Targets
48.40%
607
58.60%
74.70%
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
74.60%
178
45.50%
62.70%
Priority School
Met 17 of 17 Targets
72.80%
234
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
80
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G5. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, NELA, 2009–10 School Data
School of
Placement
Northampton High
School
Belmont
Elementary School
Roanoke Rapids
High School
Mariam Boyd
Elementary School
Ahoskie
Elementary School
Hertford High
School
Hollister
Elementary School
Bertie Middle
School
South Johnston
High School
South Warren
Elementary School
AB Combs Magnet
Elementary School
Bertie Middle
School
Bearfield Primary
School
Mariam Boyd
Elementary School
Riverview
Elementary School
Long Mill
Elementary School
Belmont
Elementary School
Hollister
Elementary School
Chaloner Middle
School
Central Elementary
School
Hollister
Elementary School
English I/
Reading
Algebra
I/
Mathematics
Designation
75.80%
77.50%
School of Progress
64.50%
79.30%
School of Progress
80.50%
52.10%
School of Progress
55.40%
68.80%
School of Progress
59.40%
68.80%
School of Progress
76.40%
68.80%
School of Progress
43.30%
68.30%
Priority School
53.00%
80.30%
School of Progress
85.90%
74.60%
School of
Distinction
AYP
Not Met
(9 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(11 of 15 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(4 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 19 Targets Met)
49.50%
80.60%
School of Progress
77.50%
87.90%
School of
Distinction
53.00%
80.30%
School of Progress
52.30%
63.80%
Priority School
55.40%
68.80%
School of Progress
47.90%
65.80%
Priority School
69.80%
89.50%
School of Progress
64.50%
79.30%
School of Progress
43.40%
68.30%
Priority School
69.20%
86.60%
School of Progress
53.80%
73.50%
School of Progress
43.40%
68.30%
Priority School
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
69.40%
450
60.30%
757
35.70%
847
91.30%
335
78.50%
481
68.00%
800
74.20%
221
76.00%
658
29.70%
1179
Met 13 of 13 Targets
79.80%
182
Met 27 of 27 Targets
29.60%
808
76.00%
658
77.60%
760
91.30%
335
Met 17 of 17 Targets
84.90%
438
Met 17 of 17 Targets
47.30%
534
60.30%
757
74.20%
221
44.90%
578
Met 13 of 13 Targets
92.80%
285
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
74.20%
221
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 15 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
81
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G6. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, NELA, 2010–11 School Data
School of
Placement
Northampton High
School
Belmont
Elementary School
Roanoke Rapids
High School
Mariam Boyd
Elementary School
Ahoskie
Elementary School
Hertford High
School
Hollister
Elementary School
Bertie Middle
School
South Johnston
High School
South Warren
Elementary School
AB Combs Magnet
Elementary School
Bertie Middle
School
Bearfield Primary
School
Mariam Boyd
Elementary School
Riverview
Elementary School
Long Mill
Elementary School
Belmont
Elementary School
Hollister
Elementary School
Chaloner Middle
School
Central Elementary
School
Hollister
Elementary School
English I/
Reading
Algebra
I/
Mathematics
Designation
AYP
79.30%
71.40%
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
62.20%
78.10%
School of Progress
80.40%
62.20%
School of Progress
60.10%
71.10%
School of Progress
59.00%
78.30%
School of Progress
67.30%
63.30%
School of Progress
43.60%
66.70%
Priority School
47.60%
80.30%
School of Progress
79.70%
73.40%
School of
Distinction
48.40%
77.40%
School of Progress
75.70%
87.00%
School of
Distinction
47.60%
80.30%
School of Progress
52.60%
75.30%
School of Progress
60.10%
71.10%
School of Progress
43.60%
60.80%
Priority School
73.40%
86.70%
School of Progress
62.20%
78.10%
School of Progress
43.60%
66.70%
Priority School
67.50%
87.70%
School of Progress
55.50%
71.40%
School of Progress
43.60%
66.70%
Priority School
Not Met
(13 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(11 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(23 of 27 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 17 Targets Met)
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
76.00%
392
71.90%
760
43.30%
830
95.30%
318
81.70%
518
66.00%
783
83.80%
244
71.10%
639
28.60%
1132
77.10%
183
30.60%
803
71.10%
639
82.30%
758
95.30%
318
86.00%
441
47.20%
538
71.90%
760
83.80%
244
46.00%
646
87.50%
291
83.80%
244
82
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G7. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, PTLA, 2008–09 School Data
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
AYP
71.10%
48.90%
No Recognition
Met 17 of 17 Targets
39.70%
1756
34.60%
66.00%
Priority School
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
87.00%
434
31.10%
56.20%
Low Performing
Met 21 of 21 Targets
100.00%
500
34.20%
39.60%
Low Performing
69.00%
331
43.20%
43.20%
Priority School
73.80%
259
41.60%
20.00%
Low Performing
75.00%
289
28.80%
51.90%
Priority School
97.40%
270
63.70%
76.70%
School of Progress
Met 33 of 33 Targets
54.40%
890
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
49.00%
69.60%
Priority School
Met 13 of 13 Targets
92.40%
267
47.30%
72.10%
Priority School
Met 17 of 17 Targets
100.00%
324
38.80%
62.40%
Priority School
95.90%
374
58.10%
35.10%
Priority School
56.80%
1355
37.30%
62.40%
Low Performing
Met 25 of 25 Targets
80.30%
429
56.10%
71.80%
School of Progress
Met 33 of 33 Targets
61.80%
763
24.10%
39.20%
Low Performing
Not Met
(17 of 23 Targets Met)
98.40%
377
37.60%
58.00%
Priority School
Met 25 of 25 Targets
91.90%
275
38.90%
63.10%
Priority School
Met 17 of 17 Targets
83.90%
326
74.20%
45.20%
No Recognition
Not Met
(17 of 19 Targets Met)
39.30%
1233
47.90%
68.60%
Priority School
Met 13 of 13 Targets
80.70%
252
66.30%
72.80%
School of Progress
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
67.10%
363
75.60%
85.10%
School of Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
48.80%
682
65.50%
78.00%
School of Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
64.50%
522
School of Placement
Page High School
Hunter Elementary
School
Forest Park Elementary
School
Atkins High—
Computer Tech
Atkins High—
Pre-Engineering
Atkins High—
Biotechnology
Wiley Elementary
School
Northwest Middle
School
Diggs-Latham
Elementary—Diggs*
Diggs-Latham Elem—
Latham*
North Hills Elementary
School
Parkland High School
Haw River Elementary
School
Southern Middle
School
Oak Hill Elementary
School
Hill Magnet Middle
School
Foust Elementary
School
Asheboro High School
Vandalia Elementary
School
Johnson Street Global
Studies
Jones Elementary
School
Grove Park Elementary
School
Not Met
(1 of 7 Targets Met)
Not Met
(1 of 11 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(11 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 19 Targets Met)
Percentage of
Low-Income
Students
School
Size
*Diggs and Latham were separate schools; merged for the 2010–11 school year.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
83
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G8. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, PTLA, 2009–10 School Data
English
I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Page High School
82.80%
Hunter Elementary School
School of Placement
Percentage of
Low-Income
Students
School
Size
Designation
AYP
66.90%
School of
Distinction
Met 17 of 17 Targets
41.30%
1764
51.70%
72.90%
Priority School
Met 21 of 21 Targets
93.40%
408
31.20%
59.10%
Priority School
93.80%
520
55.90%
37.30%
Priority School
78.80%
284
72.10%
50.00%
Priority School
80.00%
247
65.10%
41.40%
Priority School
80.30%
272
Wiley Elementary School
25.70%
61.00%
Priority School
98.90%
244
Northwest Middle School
66.60%
81.40%
School of Progress
59.20%
895
Kiser Middle School
65.60%
78.20%
School of Progress
54.10%
758
Graham Middle School
58.70%
76.00%
School of Progress
71.30%
628
42.60%
61.40%
Priority School
80.60%
287
47.70%
71.10%
Priority School
95.10%
287
50.00%
75.00%
Priority School
Met 15 of 15 Targets
91.80%
366
Parkland High School
72.90%
64.50%
School of Progress
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
62.80%
1295
Haw River Elementary
School
42.90%
66.70%
Priority School
Met 17 of 17 Targets
84.30%
395
Southern Middle School
56.90%
76.80%
School of Progress
Not Met
(33 of 35 Targets Met)
63.20%
798
34.10%
59.50%
Priority School
Met 19 of 19 Targets
92.50%
389
38.90%
53.00%
Priority School
96.00%
250
Foust Elementary School
42.40%
56.30%
Priority School
91.10%
339
Asheboro High School
80.20%
56.00%
No Recognition
39.00%
1247
58.00%
78.60%
School of Progress
71.20%
253
68.80%
77.60%
School of Progress
69.50%
343
Jones Elementary School
74.20%
80.40%
School of Progress
47.60%
690
Grove Park Elementary
School
59.10%
76.00%
School of Progress
67.60%
521
Forest Park Elementary
School
Atkins High—
Computer Technology
Atkins High—
Pre-Engineering
Atkins High—
Biotechnology
Diggs-Latham
Elementary—Diggs*
Diggs-Latham
Elementary—Latham*
North Hills Elementary
School
Oak Hill Elementary
School
Hill Magnet Middle
School
Vandalia Elementary
School
Johnson Street Global
Studies
Not Met
(12 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(3 of 12 Targets Met)
Not Met
(2 of 5 Targets Met)
Not Met
(4 of 7 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(30 of 31 Targets Met)
Not Met
(26 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(27 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 19 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 21 Targets Met)
Met 13 of 13 Targets
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
Met 17 of 17 Targets
*Diggs and Latham were separate schools; merged for the 2010–11 school year.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
84
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G9. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, PTLA, 2010–11 School Data
School of Placement
Page High School
Hunter Elementary
School
Forest Park
Elementary School
Atkins High—
Computer
Technology
Atkins High—
Pre-Engineering
Atkins High—
Biotechnology
Wiley Elementary
School
Northwest Middle
School
Kiser Middle School
Graham Middle
School
Diggs-Latham
Elementary School*
North Hills
Elementary School
Parkland High
School
Haw River
Elementary School
Southern Middle
School
Oak Hill Elementary
School
Hill Magnet Middle
School
Foust Elementary
School
Asheboro High
School
Vandalia Elementary
School
Johnson Street
Global Studies
Jones Elementary
School
Grove Park
Elementary School
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
82.00%
60.90%
59.10%
86.70%
School of Progress
39.80%
69.70%
Priority School
47.40%
43.60%
Priority School
45.80%
37.80%
Priority School
58.50%
42.20%
Priority School
38.30%
68.20%
Priority School
63.90%
81.70%
School of Progress
65.00%
80.40%
School of Progress
56.90%
74.60%
School of Progress
49.50%
75.50%
School of Progress
47.40%
71.20%
Priority School
69.10%
62.10%
School of Progress
41.80%
65.50%
Priority School
59.00%
75.10%
School of Progress
47.80%
79.60%
School of Progress
32.30%
60.00%
Priority School
48.30%
69.10%
Priority School
73.90%
36.00%
No Recognition
62.40%
73.80%
School of Progress
64.20%
78.70%
School of Progress
71.80%
81.00%
School of Progress
53.50%
75.20%
Priority School
Designation
School of
Distinction
AYP
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
( 20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(3 of 7 Targets Met)
Not Met
(5 of 8 Targets Met)
Not Met
(5 of 7 Targets Met)
Met 13 of 13 Targets
Not Met 17 of 29
Targets Met)
Not Met
(21 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 15 Targets Met)
Met 19 of 19 Targets
Not Met
(13 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(25 of 35 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 21 Targets Met)
Percentage of
Low-Income
Students
School
Size
43.50%
1806
95.80%
424
97.70%
540
81.60%
258
82.70%
213
83.00%
234
98.00%
238
62.60%
878
58.80%
824
76.60%
628
89.50%
438
97.00%
359
65.60%
1283
87.60%
433
67.80%
783
97.70%
415
95.90%
286
91.70%
313
47.10%
1228
79.30%
264
73.10%
347
53.00%
699
73.90%
540
*Diggs and Latham were separate schools; merged for the 2010–11 school year.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
85
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G10. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, SLA, 2008–09 School Data
School of
Placement
Harnett Primary
School
North Harnett
Primary School*
Robbins Elementary
School
Union Pines High
School
English I/
Reading
Algebra
I/
Mathematics
55.80%
75.50%
School of Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
76.50%
633
71.60%
85.20%
School of Progress
Met 21 of 21 Targets
57.50%
601
57.30%
80.30%
School of Progress
Met 21 of 21 Targets
87.80%
458
71.70%
52.00%
No Recognition
26.80%
1,162
Anson High School
41.00%
33.90%
Low Performing
57.00%
924
49.80%
59.90%
Priority School
Met 23 of 23 Targets
83.10%
452
41.90%
56.70%
Low Performing
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
75.20%
793
60.70%
67.60%
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
75.10%
419
53.90%
70.60%
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
82.40%
319
64.30%
72.10%
School of Progress
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
60.30%
593
50.50%
70.90%
Priority School
Met 21 of 21 Targets
59.10%
626
63.50%
52.40%
School of Progress
Not Met
(11 of 15 Targets Met)
53.60%
546
53.10%
68.80%
Priority School
Met 17 of 17 Targets
78.20%
544
65.20%
66.00%
School of Progress
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
45.40%
1,071
68.30%
83.30%
School of Progress
Met 25 of 25 Targets
54.10%
717
64.30%
77.50%
School of Progress
Not Listed
779
53.30%
77.60%
School of Progress
69.60%
520
54.30%
73.50%
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
67.80%
773
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
66.30%
85.60%
School of Progress
Met 9 of 9 Targets
87.00%
186
Spring Lake Middle
School
Elizabeth Cashwell
Elementary School
Luscille Souders
Elementary School
Margaret Willis
Elementary School
East Montgomery
High School
Sandy Grove
Elementary School
E. Columbus High
School
Tabor City
Elementary School
Southern Lee High
School
J. R. Ingram
Elementary School
Sanlee Middle
School
South Robeson
High School
Pembroke
Elementary School
East Rockingham
Elementary**
Pate Gardner
Elementary School
Designation
AYP
Not Met
(11 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(0 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(26 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(8 of 16 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
*Since 2009, this school has been K–2 only.
**Just opened in the 2010–11 school year.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
86
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G11. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, SLA, 2009–10 School Data
School of
Placement
Harnett Primary
School
North Harnett
Primary School*
Robbins
Elementary School
Union Pines High
School
English I/
Reading
Algebra
I/
Mathematics
50.00%
61.30%
Priority School
N/A
N/A
School of Progress
56.60%
76.80%
School of Progress
Met 21 of 21 Targets
83.90%
69.10%
School of
Distinction
Anson High School
54.90%
26.10%
Low Performing
48.90%
63.80%
Priority School
Not Met
(12 of 15 Targets Met)
Not Met
(3 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 19 Targets Met)
50.50%
64.10%
Priority School
67.00%
78.00%
63.30%
Spring Lake
Middle School
Elizabeth Cashwell
Elementary School
Luscille Souders
Elementary School
Margaret Willis
Elementary School
East Montgomery
High School
Sandy Grove
Elementary School
E. Columbus High
School
Tabor City
Elementary School
Southern Lee High
School
J. R. Ingram
Elementary School
Sanlee Middle
School
South Robeson
High School
Pembroke
Elementary School
East Rockingham
Elementary**
Pate Gardner
Elementary School
Designation
AYP
Not Met
(13 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(27 of 29 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
76.20%
601
67.20%
417
91.90%
438
30.80%
1174
55.90%
819
82.00%
421
Met 19 of 19 Targets
77.20%
744
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
72.20%
411
75.30%
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
79.90%
308
70.20%
85.00%
School of Progress
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
66.00%
573
60.30%
76.60%
School of Progress
Met 21 of 21 Targets
60.80%
586
77.80%
74.60%
School of Progress
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
51.20%
539
67.60%
75.70%
School of Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
70.80%
493
76.70%
71.90%
No Recognition
48.80%
1083
72.10%
83.10%
School of Progress
60.40%
699
66.40%
85.20%
School of Progress
63.00%
790
55.10%
64.60%
School of Progress
81.80%
526
58.30%
75.60%
School of Progress
78.00%
754
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
75.80%
90.50%
School of
Distinction
Met 13 of 13 Targets
81.90%
160
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 23 Targets Met)
Met 29 of 29 Targets
Not Met
(4 of 14 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
*Since 2009, this school has been K–2 only.
**Just opened in the 2010–11 school year.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
87
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G12. RLA Cohort 1 Internships, SLA, 2010–11 School Data
School of
Placement
Harnett Primary
School
North Harnett
Primary School*
Robbins
Elementary School
Union Pines High
School
English I/
Reading
Algebra
I/
Mathematics
43.60%
54.50%
Priority School
N/A
N/A
Priority School
54.10%
71.20%
School of Progress
88.50%
77.80%
School of
Distinction
Anson High School
59.90%
22.10%
Low Performing
55.50%
69.40%
School of Progress
57.50%
69.40%
No Recognition
63.70%
80.20%
School of Progress
58.30%
74.20%
School of Progress
74.10%
69.10%
School of Progress
58.00%
73.90%
No Recognition
72.60%
56.70%
No Recognition
68.80%
79.30%
School of Progress
77.60%
66.60%
School of Progress
72.20%
85.40%
School of Progress
70.00%
86.90%
School of Progress
57.10%
66.00%
School of Progress
60.20%
75.40%
School of Progress
56.70%
82.80%
School of Progress
78.20%
95.00%
School of
Distinction
Spring Lake Middle
School
Elizabeth Cashwell
Elementary School
Luscille Souders
Elementary School
Margaret Willis
Elementary School
East Montgomery
High School
Sandy Grove
Elementary School
E. Columbus High
School
Tabor City
Elementary School
Southern Lee High
School
J. R. Ingram
Elementary School
San Lee Middle
School
South Robeson
High School
Pembroke
Elementary School
East Rockingham
Elementary**
Pate Gardner
Elementary School
Designation
AYP
Not Met
(11 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 17 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
78.60%
571
69.10%
440
88.20%
450
35.10%
1181
55.20%
804
84.30%
424
79.10%
715
72.20%
441
82.80%
317
71.90%
566
61.70%
542
57.80%
528
77.10%
497
51.20%
1063
64.00%
677
66.20%
810
82.80%
503
75.80%
725
Met 21 of 21 Targets
80.30%
595
Met 11 of 11 Targets
85.40%
159
Met 23 of 23 Targets
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(26 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(2 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 17 Targets Met)
*Since 2009, this school has been K–2 only.
**Just opened in the 2010–11 school year.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
88
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Cohort 2 Internships, 2008–2011
Table G13. RLA Cohort 2 Internships, NELA, Total Change in Percentages, 2008–2011
Name
Total Change in
Percentages
English I/
Algebra I/
Reading
Mathematics
School of Internship
LEA
Amy Pearce
Stocks Elementary School
Edgecombe
-0.30%
4.20%
Vernedette
Garland
Kelly Shelton
Mudd
Winstead Avenue
Elementary School*
Southern Nash Middle
School
Nash/Rocky Mount
N/A
N/A
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%
Nash/Rocky Mount
12.90%
16.30%
Franklin
4.10%
4.30%
Vance
2.80%
0.80%
Wilton Elementary School
Granville
-1.10%
0.70%
Jennifer Lewis
Baskerville Elementary
School
Nash/Rocky Mount
12.90%
5.00%
Krista Fasioli
Parker Middle School
Nash/Rocky Mount
-0.20%
6.80%
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%
JF Webb High School
Granville
-2.40%
12.10%
Edgecombe
5.70%
7.00%
Martin
8.90%
5.20%
Edgecombe
1.50%
-8.10%
Granville
0.40%
7.90%
Roanoke Rapids
City Schools
0.70%
-0.50%
Teicher Patterson
Lisa Pennington
Jackson Olsen
Kim Allison
Tim Mudd
Erin Robbins
Rocky Mount Senior High
School
Long Mill Elementary
School
Zeb Vance Elementary
School
Elizabeth Payne
Moran
South Edgecombe Middle
School
South Creek Middle
School***
Southwest Edgecombe High
School
West Oxford Elementary
School
Lauren Greenhill
Belmont Elementary School
Angela Strother
Larry Hodgkins
Darren Gemzik
*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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
89
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G14. RLA Cohort 2 Internships, PTLA, Total Change in Percentages, 2008–2011
Name
Total Change in
Percentages
English I/
Algebra I/
Reading
Mathematics
School of Internship
LEA
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%
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%
Southern Middle School
GCS
2.90%
3.30%
North Forsyth High School
WSFCS
3.00%
25.50%
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%
Janiese Mckenzie
Toks Wall
Kimberly Ashby
Kathy Bryant
*This is Paisley IB Magnet.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
90
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G15. RLA Cohort 2 Internships, SLA, Total Change in Percentages, 2008–2011
Name
Total Change in
Percentages
English I/
Algebra I/
Reading
Mathematics
School of Internship
LEA
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%
Southern Lee High School
Lee County
12.40%
0.60%
Sanlee Middle School
Lee County
5.70%
9.40%
West Pine Middle School
Moore County
0.90%
-0.70%
Elise Middle School
Moore County
1.00%
5.00%
Southern Pines Primary School*
Moore County
N/A
N/A
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%
North Harnett Primary School**
Harnett County
N/A
N/A
32.50%
19.40%
51.30%
38.20%
15.60%
12.70%
4.00%
6.50%
2.40%
-2.90%
Andrew Keller
Christy Burgess Sharpe
Matt Moore
Tracy Metcalf
Marci Houseman
Katrina Fox
Jennifer Spivey
Pam Lewis
Matt Mcclean
Kisha Timberlake Derr
Mike Picciano
Kristy West
Scotland High—Math, Science,
& Tech***
Scotland High—Visual &
Performing Arts***
Elizabeth Cashwell Elementary
School
South View Middle School
Doug Byrd High School
Scotland County
Cumberland
County
Cumberland
County
Cumberland
County
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
91
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G16. RLA Cohort 2 Internships, NELA, 2008–09 School Data
School of
Placement
Stocks Elementary
School
Winstead Avenue
Elementary*
Southern Nash
Middle School
Riverside Middle
School**
Coopers
Elementary School
Southern Nash
High School
Rocky Mount
Senior High School
Long Mill
Elementary School
Zeb Vance
Elementary School
Wilton Elementary
School
Baskerville
Elementary School
Parker Middle
School
DS Johnson
Elementary School
Nashville
Elementary School
Bailey Elementary
School
JF Webb High
School
South Edgecombe
Middle School
South Creek
Middle School***
Southwest
Edgecombe High
West Oxford
Elementary School
Belmont
Elementary School
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
AYP
45.90%
72.70%
Priority School
Met 17 of 17 Targets
70.72%
687
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
54.56%
605
63.60%
79.30%
School of Progress
Met 29 of 29 Targets
54.89%
1054
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
72.90%
85.40%
No Recognition
Met 15 of 15 Targets
38.16%
645
65.40%
78.70%
School of Progress
44.74%
1180
59.90%
46.70%
No Recognition
49.79%
1176
69.30%
82.40%
School of Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
40.72%
447
65.20%
81.40%
School of Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
72.85%
499
74.80%
89.40%
School of
Distinction
Met 13 of 13 Targets
24.41%
620
52.60%
76.30%
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
97.06%
406
57.10%
63.90%
School of Progress
Met 21 of 21 Targets
69.91%
503
42.10%
54.80%
Low Performing
Met 13 of 13 Targets
71.01%
421
68.70%
87.60%
School of Progress
Met 21 of 21 Targets
44.27%
807
69.40%
86.00%
School of Progress
Met 25 of 25 Targets
68.86%
654
62.80%
50.70%
School of Progress
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
23.90%
830
49.60%
63.90%
Priority School
Met 19 of 19 Targets
61.28%
379
62.60%
79.50%
School of Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
Not Listed
262
65.40%
48.00%
No Recognition
47.16%
927
51.10%
56.00%
Priority School
69.25%
606
61.50%
78.60%
School of Progress
58.98%
782
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 23 Targets Met)
Met 19 of 19 Targets
Percentage of
Low-Income
Students
School
Size
*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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
92
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G17. RLA Cohort 2 Internships, NELA, 2009–10 School Data
School of
Placement
Stocks Elementary
School
Winstead Avenue
Elementary*
Southern Nash
Middle School
Riverside Middle
School**
Coopers
Elementary School
Southern Nash
High School
Rocky Mount
Senior High School
Long Mill
Elementary School
Zeb Vance
Elementary School
Wilton Elementary
School
Baskerville
Elementary School
Parker Middle
School
DS Johnson
Elementary School
Nashville
Elementary School
Bailey Elementary
School
JF Webb High
School
South Edgecombe
Middle School
South Creek
Middle School***
Southwest
Edgecombe High
School
West Oxford
Elementary School
Belmont
Elementary School
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
43.50%
70.70%
Priority School
N/A
N/A
N/A
66.90%
80.80%
N/A
AYP
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Percentage of
Low-Income
Students
School
Size
68.86%
663
N/A
63.09%
564
School of Progress
Not Met
(26 of 29 Targets Met)
58.75%
1017
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
72.70%
82.40%
School of Progress
42.75%
664
75.40%
80.70%
School of Progress
43.68%
1184
74.20%
62.20%
No Recognition
47.05%
1162
69.80%
89.50%
School of Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
47.26%
534
67.80%
82.40%
School of Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
80.61%
477
77.30%
92.40%
School of
Distinction
Met 13 of 13 Targets
33.33%
625
56.10%
75.70%
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
99.75%
374
54.50%
68.20%
School of Progress
72.55%
472
37.40%
51.40%
Priority School
81.93%
455
73.80%
88.20%
School of Progress
49.07%
797
64.50%
78.40%
No Recognition
71.43%
655
59.60%
74.00%
No recognition
47.73%
764
54.30%
70.00%
No Recognition
51.75%
383
64.70%
77.00%
School of Progress
Met 15 of 15 Targets
Not listed
256
69.80%
46.30%
School of Progress
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
43.85%
931
52.00%
62.80%
Priority School
Met 23 of 23 Targets
70.60%
611
64.50%
79.30%
School of Progress
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
60.33%
757
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(11 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(24 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
*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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
93
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G18. RLA Cohort 2 Internships, NELA, 2010–11 School Data
School of
Placement
Stocks Elementary
School
Winstead Avenue
Elementary*
Southern Nash
Middle School
Riverside Middle
School**
Coopers
Elementary School
Southern Nash
High School
Rocky Mount
Senior High School
Long Mill
Elementary School
Zeb Vance
Elementary School
Wilton Elementary
School
Baskerville
Elementary School
Parker Middle
School
DS Johnson
Elementary School
Nashville
Elementary School
Bailey Elementary
School
JF Webb High
School
South Edgecombe
Middle School
South Creek
Middle School***
Southwest
Edgecombe High
School
West Oxford
Elementary School
Belmont
Elementary School
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
45.60%
76.90%
No Recognition
N/A
N/A
N/A
68.50%
80.30%
N/A
AYP
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Percentage of
Low-Income
Students
School
Size
75.49%
661
N/A
67.50%
562
School of Progress
Not Met
(24 of 33 Targets Met)
60.20%
1050
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
75.30%
85.80%
School of
Distinction
48.48%
662
68.00%
78.70%
No Recognition
56.81%
1231
72.80%
63.00%
School of Progress
65.53%
1134
73.40%
86.70%
School of Progress
47.17%
538
68.00%
82.20%
School of Progress
80.66%
410
73.70%
90.10%
School of
Distinction
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(21 of 24 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 17 Targets Met)
40.23%
627
65.50%
81.30%
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
96.27%
355
56.90%
70.70%
School of Progress
76.15%
453
44.40%
54.20%
Priority School
80.20%
471
79.30%
90.50%
School of
Distinction
51.11%
750
71.70%
80.50%
School of Progress
77.86%
647
60.40%
62.80%
School of Progress
49.12%
711
55.30%
70.90%
School of Progress
63.68%
366
71.50%
84.70%
School of Progress
64.27%
390
66.90%
39.90%
School of Progress
51.86%
914
51.50%
63.90%
Priority School
76.07%
582
62.20%
78.10%
School of Progress
71.86%
760
Not Met
(13 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Met 21 of 21 Targets
Not Met
(24 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 21 Targets Met)
*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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
94
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G19. RLA Cohort 2 Internships, PTLA, 2008–09 School Data
School of
Placement
William High
School
Graham High
School
Eastlawn
Elementary School
Montilieu
Elementary School
Hairston Middle
School
Ferndale Middle
School
Eastern Middle
School
Jones Elementary
School
Northeast Middle
School
Mendenhall Middle
School
Johnson Street
Global Studies
Ragsdale High
School
Southern Middle
School
North Forsyth High
School
Konnoak
Elementary School
Griffith Elementary
School
Ibraham Elementary
School
Paisley Middle
School*
Middle Fork
Elementary School
Wiley Middle
School
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
75.60%
46.90%
School of Progress
60.70%
35.10%
Priority School
34.70%
67.10%
Low Performing
33.50%
52.60%
Low Performing
38.10%
58.50%
Low Performing
53.00%
68.10%
School of Progress
54.70%
66.50%
75.60%
AYP
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(11 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(24 of 25 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
30.60%
1238
52.18%
794
92.94%
477
88.91%
458
88.06%
598
Met 33 of 33 Targets
73.65%
708
No Recognition
Met 33 of 33 Targets
59.73%
887
85.10%
School of Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
48.80%
682
60.90%
79.30%
School of Progress
Met 29 of 29 Targets
55.49%
841
74.00%
83.00%
School of Progress
Met 37 of 37 Targets
42.95%
933
66.30%
72.80%
School of Progress
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
67.12%
363
64.70%
25.40%
No Recognition
Met 17 of 17 Targets
36.43%
1469
56.10%
71.80%
School of Progress
Met 33 of 33 Targets
61.77%
763
68.20%
38.70%
Priority School
49.95%
1180
42.30%
71.10%
Priority School
88.28%
647
55.90%
70.20%
No Recognition
70.11%
741
49.20%
78.90%
School of Progress
Met 15 of 15 Targets
90.12%
401
75.10%
77.90%
School of Progress
Met 23 of 23 Targets
36.61%
620
34.80%
54.70%
Low Performing
Not Met
(23 of 25 Targets Met)
76.01%
514
49.70%
63.70%
Priority School
Met 29 of 29 Targets
71.43%
611
Not Met
(13 of 22 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(28 of 29 Targets Met)
*This is Paisley IB Magnet.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
95
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G20. RLA Cohort 2 Internships, PTLA, 2009–10 School Data
School of
Placement
William High
School
Graham High
School
Eastlawn
Elementary School
Montilieu
Elementary School
Hairston Middle
School
Ferndale Middle
School
Eastern Middle
School
Jones Elementary
School
Northeast Middle
School
Mendenhall Middle
School
Johnson Street
Global Studies
Ragsdale High
School
Southern Middle
School
North Forsyth High
School
Konnoak
Elementary School
Griffith Elementary
School
Ibraham Elementary
School
Paisley Middle
School*
Middle Fork
Elementary School
Wiley Middle
School
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
81.30%
48.90%
71.10%
61.50%
School of Progress
38.80%
62.90%
Priority School
46.30%
71.20%
Priority School
44.70%
67.80%
Priority School
51.80%
64.60%
No Recognition
55.10%
64.30%
No Recognition
74.20%
80.40%
School of Progress
63.00%
79.20%
School of Progress
73.70%
81.80%
School of Progress
68.80%
77.60%
School of Progress
76.70%
40.00%
School of Progress
56.90%
76.80%
School of Progress
72.00%
63.20%
School of Progress
46.00%
74.20%
Priority School
63.40%
75.90%
School of Progress
49.10%
78.30%
School of Progress
75.30%
87.00%
School of
Distinction
46.30%
74.40%
Priority School
54.90%
66.30%
School of Progress
Designation
School of
Distinction
AYP
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
31.30%
1184
56.80%
773
97.30%
446
81.10%
418
91.06%
544
71.49%
757
61.02%
913
47.58%
690
57.48%
829
44.71%
965
69.53%
343
38.50%
1,386
63.19%
798
52.96%
1222
89.23%
612
78.07%
596
Met 17 of 17 Targets
89.38%
433
Met 25 of 25 Targets
44.59%
673
76.98%
448
71.85%
549
Met 13 of 13 Targets
Not Met
(24 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(32 of 33 Targets Met)
Not Met
(28 of 37 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(25 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(32 of 37 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(33 of 35 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(23 of 24 Targets Met)
Not Met
(23 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(24 of 29 Targets Met)
*This is Paisley IB Magnet.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
96
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G21. RLA Cohort 2 Internships, PTLA, 2010–11 School Data
School of
Placement
William High
School
Graham High
School
Eastlawn
Elementary School
Montilieu
Elementary School
Hairston Middle
School
Ferndale Middle
School
Eastern Middle
School
Jones Elementary
School
Northeast Middle
School
Mendenhall Middle
School
Johnson Street
Global Studies
Ragsdale High
School
Southern Middle
School
North Forsyth High
School
Konnoak
Elementary School
Griffith Elementary
School
Ibraham Elementary
School
Paisley Middle
School*
Middle Fork
Elementary School
Wiley Middle
School
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
80.10%
54.10%
School of Progress
76.40%
63.10%
School of Progress
45.50%
66.70%
Priority School
49.20%
74.30%
Priority School
42.50%
60.10%
Priority School
54.70%
69.30%
School of Progress
56.40%
69.90%
School of Progress
71.80%
81.00%
School of Progress
60.70%
76.50%
School of Progress
72.20%
78.90%
School of Progress
64.20%
78.70%
School of Progress
82.00%
75.40%
School of Progress
59.00%
75.10%
School of Progress
71.20%
64.20%
School of Progress
46.20%
69.80%
Priority School
57.10%
73.40%
No Recognition
51.70%
70.70%
School of Progress
70.90%
81.90%
School of
Distinction
49.80%
74.60%
Priority School
57.30%
65.00%
School of Progress
AYP
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(25 of 33 Targets Met)
Not Met
(27 of 33 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 27 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 33 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 21 Targets Met)
Met 17 of 17 Targets
Not Met
(25 of 35 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(21 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 29 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
40.53%
1140
61.09%
753
93.36%
433
88.44%
406
90.93%
571
73.82%
833
65.02%
943
62.53%
699
62.14%
835
47.84%
983
73.08%
347
43.88%
1365
67.84%
783
58.65%
1194
90.47%
625
84.54%
547
92.97%
463
42.71%
729
84.56%
390
73.78%
489
*This is Paisley IB Magnet.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
97
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G22. RLA Cohort 2 Internships, SLA, 2008–09 School Data
English
I/
Reading
Algebra
I/
Mathematics
Designation
AYP
63.10%
79.10%
School of Progress
Met 15 of 15 Targets
60.72%
456
64.10%
81.70%
School of Progress
Met 25 of 25 Targets
73.08%
649
68.30%
83.30%
School of Progress
Met 25 of 25 Targets
54.00%
717
65.20%
66.00%
School of Progress
45.00%
1071
SanLee Middle School
64.30%
77.50%
School of Progress
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
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
56.54%
430
69.40%
78.90%
No Recognition
Met 21 of 21 Targets
48.10%
427
53.10%
68.80%
Priority School
Met 17 of 17 Targets
77.57%
544
47.40%
62.10%
Priority School
Not Met
(30 of 33 Targets Met)
72.99%
753
71.60%
85.20%
School of Progress
Met 21 of 21 Targets
57.49%
601
50.00%
38.50%
School of Progress
Not Met
(9 of 11 Targets Met)
48.03%
242
30.00%
8.70%
Priority School
Met 7 of 7 Targets
56.22%
266
41.90%
56.70%
Low Performing
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
75.20%
793
58.30%
62.30%
No Recognition
Met 25 of 25 Targets
59.60%
864
64.30%
55.30%
Priority School
71.21%
1169
45.00%
64.80%
Priority School
75.72%
879
52.90%
57.60%
School of Progress
60.00%
1472
56.90%
69.80%
School of Progress
60.13%
745
49.80%
73.20%
Priority School
77.72%
389
N/A
9.50%
School of Progress
53.42%
1,436
School of Placement
Bladenboro Primary
School
B.T. Bullock Elementary
School
J.R. Ingram Elementary
School
Southern Lee High
School
Southern Pines Primary
School*
Southern Pine
Elementary School
Tabor City Elementary
School
West Hoke Middle
School
North Harnett Primary
School**
Scotland High—Math,
Science, & Tech***
Scotland High—Visual &
Performing Arts***
Elizabeth Cashwell
Elementary School
South View Middle
School
Doug Byrd High School
St. Pauls Elementary
School
Purnell Swett High
School
Rockingham Middle
School
West Rockingham
Elementary School
Richmond Senior High
School
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(26 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 19 Targets Met)
Not Met
(32 of 33 Targets Met)
Not Met
(8 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 19 Targets Met)
Percentage of
Low-Income
Students
School
Size
*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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
98
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G23. RLA Cohort 2 Internships, SLA, 2009–10 School Data
School of Placement
Bladenboro Primary
School
B.T. Bullock
Elementary School
J.R. Ingram
Elementary School
Southern Lee High
School
SanLee Middle
School
West Pine Middle
School
Elise Middle School
Southern Pines
Primary School*
Southern Pine
Elementary School
Tabor City
Elementary School
West Hoke Middle
School
North Harnett Primary
School**
Scotland High—Math,
Science, & Tech***
Scotland High—
Visual & Performing
Arts***
Elizabeth Cashwell
Elementary School
South View Middle
School
Doug Byrd High
School
St. Pauls Elementary
School
Purnell Swett High
School
Rockingham Middle
School
West Rockingham
Elementary School
Richmond Senior
High School
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
62.00%
72.10%
School of Progress
62.90%
78.40%
School of Progress
72.10%
83.10%
School of Progress
76.70%
71.90%
No Recognition
66.40%
85.20%
School of Progress
87.50%
93.70%
64.80%
AYP
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(25 of 27 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets Met)
Percentage of
Low-Income
Students
School
Size
70.54%
447
67.94%
645
60.44%
699
48.79%
1083
Met 29 of 29 Targets
62.97%
790
Honor School of
Excellence
Met 21 of 21 Targets
25.00%
823
84.90%
School of Progress
Met 21 of 21 Targets
81.00%
205
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
57.00%
442
70.00%
83.50%
School of Progress
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
50.00%
421
67.60%
75.70%
School of Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
70.78%
493
56.60%
75.50%
School of Progress
Not Met
(30 of 33 Targets Met)
80.38%
796
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
67.19%
417
N/A
N/A
School of Progress
Met 5 of 5 Targets
47.15%
221
10.00%
25.00%
Priority School
Not Met
(9 of 13 Targets Met)
64.34%
268
50.50%
64.10%
Priority School
Met 19 of 19 Targets
77.23%
744
61.20%
66.00%
School of Progress
54.67%
723
78.90%
66.60%
School of Progress
69.96%
1238
45.90%
63.30%
Priority School
80.68%
882
59.80%
58.20%
School of Progress
63.79%
1619
60.10%
73.50%
School of Progress
39.58%
744
50.80%
68.00%
Priority School
84.69%
368
N/A
35.80%
School of
Distinction
59.00%
1408
Not Met
(23 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 19 Targets Met)
Not Met
(24 of 31 Targets Met)
Not Met
(8 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 17 Targets Met)
*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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
99
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G24. RLA Cohort 2 Internships, SLA, 2010–11 School Data
English I/
Reading
Algebra
I/
Mathematics
Designation
61.90%
72.50%
School of Progress
66.00%
85.70%
School of Progress
72.20%
85.40%
School of Progress
77.60%
66.60%
School of Progress
SanLee Middle School
70.00%
86.90%
School of Progress
West Pine Middle
School
86.80%
92.40%
School of
Excellence
Elise Middle School
65.20%
87.30%
School of Progress
N/A
N/A
N/A
67.50%
81.60%
No Recognition
68.80%
79.30%
School of Progress
58.70%
80.20%
School of Progress
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
82.50%
57.90%
School of
Distinction
81.30%
46.90%
Priority School
57.50%
69.40%
No Recognition
62.30%
68.80%
School of Progress
66.70%
52.40%
No Recognition
53.60%
72.20%
Priority School
60.30%
66.80%
School of Progress
56.50%
72.80%
School of Progress
53.30%
80.70%
School of Progress
6.30%
30.40%
School of
Distinction
Not Met
(14 of 16 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 11 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 27 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(28 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 19 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 19 Targets Met)
School of Placement
Bladenboro Primary
School
B.T. Bullock
Elementary School
J.R. Ingram
Elementary School
Southern Lee High
School
Southern Pines
Primary School*
Southern Pine
Elementary School
Tabor City Elementary
School
West Hoke Middle
School
North Harnett Primary
School**
Scotland High—Math,
Science, & Tech***
Scotland High—Visual
& Performing Arts***
Elizabeth Cashwell
Elementary School
South View Middle
School
Doug Byrd High
School
St. Pauls Elementary
School
Purnell Swett High
School
Rockingham Middle
School
West Rockingham
Elementary School
Richmond Senior High
School
AYP
Not Met
(10 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(24 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(26 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 21 Targets Met)
N/A
Not Met
(15 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(28 of 33 Targets Met)
Percentage of
Low-Income
Students
School
Size
75.51%
449
69.92%
630
63.96%
677
51.24%
1063
66.17%
810
24.30%
825
82.32%
210
56.05%
409
53.18%
421
77.11%
497
76.81%
855
69.10%
440
44.38%
384
70.18%
392
79.14%
715
59.11%
792
70.33%
1223
85.23%
909
69.02%
1615
64.87%
745
81.23%
358
57.82%
1348
*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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
100
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Cohort 3 Internships, 2009–2012
Table G25. RLA Cohort 3 Internships, NELA, Total Change in Percentages, 2009–2012
Name
Tawanda Smallwood
School of Internship
Roanoke Rapids High
School
SW Edgecombe High
School
Bertie High School
Stephanie Cottle
Bertie Middle School
Bertie
5.70%
1.00%
RRGSD
-1.80%
-2.60%
Weldon City
13.00%
5.40%
Granville
-0.40%
-5.30%
Sophelia McMannen
Chaloner Middle School
Roanoke Valley Early
College
G.C. Hawley Middle
School
Wilton Elementary
Granville
-0.20%
1.70%
Cindy Miller-Walker
Youngsville Elementary
Franklin
3.20%
0.00%
Michelle Mobley
East End Elementary
Hertford County Middle
School
Southeast Halifax High
School
Tarboro High School
Martin
9.00%
-16.70%
Hertford
-1.80%
-1.80%
Halifax
26.50%
42.10%
Edgecombe
7.40%
-13.10%
Bertie
-0.90%
-9.40%
Martin
3.70%
0.50%
Bertie
-1.80%
-3.40%
RRGSD
-1.90%
2.50%
Granville
2.60%
-5.10%
Hertford
0.90%
9.60%
Warren
5.90%
11.60%
Joey Briggs
Matt Smith
Chad Geary
Viola Gilbert
Nafeesha Irby
Allie Pearson
Karyn Pleasant
Lauren Prudenti
Katie Row
Misty Rushing
Karen Sharpe
Melissa Strickland
Trena Sutton
Ronica Watford
Jennifer Wilker
Windsor Elementary
South Creek Middle
School
West Bertie Elementary
Manning Elementary
Mary Potter Middle
School
Bearfield Primary
Warren New Tech High
School
LEA
Total Change in
Percentages
English I/
Algebra I/
Reading
Mathematics
RRGSD
4.80%
11.20%
Edgecombe
3.90%
-9.90%
Bertie
-26.40%
-26.20%
Note: South Creek Middle School was called Roanoke Middle School in 2009-10.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
101
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G26. RLA Cohort 3 Internships, PTLA, Total Change in Percentages, 2009–2012
Name
School of Internship
Melissa Allred
North Asheboro Middle
Karen Anderson
High Point Central High
School
LEA
Asheboro
City
Total Change in
Percentages
English I/
Algebra I/
Reading
Mathematics
-4.80%
-5.30%
2.60%
1.60%
-1.10%
-2.30%
-2.60%
-5.60%
-3.30%
-2.50%
Guilford
AlamanceBurlington
-12.20%
-9.70%
-3.40%
0.40%
Hairston Middle
Guilford
1.90%
-3.90%
Montlieu Elementary
Guilford
12.40%
11.00%
Madison Hester
Peeler Open Elementary
-4.40%
2.20%
Traci Horton
Haw River Elementary
Guilford
AlamanceBurlington
Guilford
Winston
Salem Forsyth
-1.60%
-11.70%
3.10%
14.60%
-5.10%
-4.10%
Guilford
-2.00%
7.90%
Guilford
Winston
Salem Forsyth
Guilford
Asheboro
City
Winston
Salem Forsyth
Guilford
Winston
Salem Forsyth
AlamanceBurlington
2.90%
5.70%
-4.20%
-5.70%
-1.90%
0.40%
4.60%
2.80%
7.60%
3.20%
-3.10%
14.60%
-5.00%
-1.20%
7.10%
10.70%
Aaron Bailey
Hanes Magnet Middle
Clinton Baron
Wiley Middle
Adjoa Botwe-Rankin
Allen Middle
Bennie Bradley
Curry E. Bryan, IV
Catherine Cecchini
Moreland
Tom Ehlers
Candace Hudson
Cone Elementary
Graham Middle
Duane Lewis
Hunter Elementary
Hall-Woodward
Elementary
Northeast Guilford High
School
Welborn Middle
Bobbie Lynch
Walkertown Middle
Malinda Kerns
Noelle Leslie
Barbara McRae
Kiser Middle
Yajaira Owens
Loflin Elementary
Teresa Rose
Christopher Scott
Michelle Varoutsos
Ashley Westmoreland
Kernersville Elementary
Dudley High School
Old Town Elementary
Hillcrest Elementary
Guilford
Winston
Salem Forsyth
Winston
Salem Forsyth
Guilford
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
102
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G27. RLA Cohort 3 Internships, SLA, Total Change in Percentages, 2009–2012
Name
Stephanie Norris
School of Internship
Clarkton School of
Discovery
South Columbus High
School
Acme-Delco
Elementary
Elizabeth Cashwell
Elementary
Brentwood
Elementary
LEA
Total Change in
Percentages
English I/
Algebra I/
Reading
Mathematics
Bladen County
-5.70%
-2.20%
Columbus County
3.90%
9.70%
Columbus County
-4.20%
-4.70%
Cumberland County
6.30%
10.70%
Cumberland County
8.10%
13.90%
Harnett County
2.10%
4.70%
Harnett County
2.70%
-5.90%
Harnett County
6.50%
7.20%
Harnett County
8.60%
2.10%
Hoke County
N/A
N/A
Lee County
-6.90%
-5.00%
Lee County
-12.40%
-9.40%
Lee County
3.50%
5.70%
Montgomery County
4.60%
7.30%
Moore County
-1.50%
-0.70%
Moore County
0.60%
4.70%
Moore County
7.70%
20.40%
Jennifer Wiley
New Century Middle
Sandhills Farm Life
Elementary
Union Pines High
School
Elise Middle
Moore County
4.10%
-0.50%
Regina Hyde
Peterson Elementary
Robeson County
0.00%
-1.20%
Tabor City Elementary
Columbus County
-1.20%
0.00%
Jimmy Price
Rachel Smith
Chad Barbour
Corine Warren
Grisel CuadradoGabot
Kimberly Davis
Catherine Jones
Chris Pearson
Tonja McGill
Angela Colvin
Crystal Colwell
Wendy Perrell
Christopher Jonassen
Julia Brown
Clarkie Hussey
Shaun Krencicki
Kristi Maultsby
Highland Elementary
Lillington-Shawtown
Elementary
South Harnett
Elementary
Western Harnett High
School
Sandy Grove Middle
Tramway Elementary
Lee County High
School
B. T. Bullock
Elementary
West Middle
Note: Sandy Grove Middle opened in 2013-14.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
103
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G28. RLA Cohort 3 Internships, NELA, 2009–10 School Data
School of
Placement
Roanoke Rapids
High School
SW Edgecombe
High School
Bertie High School
Bertie Middle
School
Chaloner Middle
School
Roanoke Valley
Early College
G.C. Hawley
Middle School
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
80.50%
52.10%
School of Progress
69.80%
46.30%
School of Progress
75.20%
78.80%
School of Progress
53.00%
80.30%
School of Progress
69.20%
86.60%
School of Progress
64.50%
87.10%
No Recognition
72.50%
84.20%
School of Progress
Wilton Elementary
77.30%
92.40%
79.20%
90.30%
52.30%
70.90%
Priority School
46.20%
65.20%
Priority School
36.50%
20.70%
Priority School
75.40%
65.00%
School of Progress
50.90%
74.80%
64.70%
Designation
AYP
Not Met
(11 of 15 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
Met 13 of 13 Targets
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
35.72%
847
43.85%
931
53.62%
666
75.95%
658
44.87%
578
Met 9 of 9 Targets
44.12%
64
Met 21 of 21 Targets
32.64%
632
Met 13 of 13 Targets
33.33%
625
Met 17 of 17 Targets
37.23%
450
Met 13 of 13 Targets
89.80%
295
66.80%
451
77.93%
541
Met 17 of 17 Targets
48.56%
700
School of Progress
Not Met
(12 of 13 Targets Met)
80.42%
429
77.00%
School of Progress
Met 15 of 15 Targets
77.24%
256
56.10%
76.00%
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
89.41%
375
69.20%
82.90%
School of Progress
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
44.88%
667
61.10%
77.50%
School of Progress
Met 19 of 19 Targets
61.94%
434
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
Youngsville
Elementary
East End
Elementary
Hertford County
Middle School
Southeast Halifax
High School
Tarboro High
School
Windsor
Elementary
South Creek
Middle School
West Bertie
Elementary
Manning
Elementary
Mary Potter Middle
School
School of
Distinction
School of
Distinction
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Note: South Creek Middle School was called Roanoke Middle School in 2009-10.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
104
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G29. RLA Cohort 3 Internships, NELA, 2010–11 School Data
School of
Placement
Roanoke Rapids
High School
SW Edgecombe
High School
Bertie High School
Bertie Middle
School
Chaloner Middle
School
Roanoke Valley
Early College
G.C. Hawley
Middle School
English I/
Reading
Algebra
I/
Mathematics
80.40%
62.20%
School of Progress
66.90%
39.90%
School of Progress
53.80%
59.70%
No Recognition
47.60%
80.30%
School of Progress
67.50%
87.70%
School of Progress
70.20%
87.70%
73.60%
87.30%
Wilton Elementary
73.70%
90.10%
80.60%
90.70%
52.80%
65.30%
Priority School
47.00%
61.30%
Priority School
40.00%
6.30%
Low Performing
77.00%
57.70%
School of Progress
47.20%
62.30%
Priority School
71.50%
84.70%
School of Progress
50.50%
68.40%
Priority School
69.40%
82.90%
School of Progress
64.20%
71.60%
School of Progress
Bearfield Primary
52.60%
75.30%
School of Progress
Warren New Tech
High School
63.20%
62.50%
No Recognition
Youngsville
Elementary
East End
Elementary
Hertford County
Middle School
Southeast Halifax
High School
Tarboro High
School
Windsor
Elementary
South Creek
Middle School
West Bertie
Elementary
Manning
Elementary
Mary Potter Middle
School
Designation
School of
Distinction
School of
Distinction
School of
Distinction
School of
Distinction
AYP
Not Met
(11 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
Met 13 of 13 Targets
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
Met 9 of 9 Targets
Not Met
(24 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 17 Targets Met)
Met 17 of 17 Targets
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 16 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 15 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(4 of 5 Targets Met)
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
43.28%
830
51.86%
914
76.80%
565
71.10%
639
45.97%
646
44.12%
112
34.07%
675
40.23%
627
40.61%
469
92.23%
288
73.95%
426
87.71%
493
58.86%
663
84.62%
408
64.27%
390
91.78%
383
47.27%
660
56.91%
434
82.25%
758
62.94%
216
105
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G30. RLA Cohort 3 Internships, NELA, 2011–12 School Data
English I/
Reading
Algebra
I/
Mathematics
Designation
AYP
85.30%
63.30%
School of Progress
Met 16 of 16 Targets
73.70%
36.40%
School of Progress
48.80%
52.60%
Priority School
58.70%
81.30%
School of Progress
67.40%
84.00%
School of Progress
77.50%
92.50%
School of
Distinction
72.10%
78.90%
No Recognition
Wilton Elementary
77.10%
94.10%
Youngsville
Elementary
82.40%
90.30%
East End Elementary
61.30%
54.20%
Priority School
44.40%
63.40%
Priority School
63.00%
62.80%
School of Progress
82.80%
51.90%
School of Progress
50.00%
65.40%
Priority School
68.40%
77.50%
School of Progress
54.30%
72.60%
School of Progress
67.30%
85.40%
School of Progress
63.70%
72.40%
School of Progress
Bearfield Primary
53.20%
73.40%
School of Progress
Warren New Tech
High School
83.30%
70.20%
No Recognition
School of
Placement
Roanoke Rapids
High School
SW Edgecombe
High School
Bertie High School
Bertie Middle
School
Chaloner Middle
School
Roanoke Valley
Early College
G.C. Hawley Middle
School
Hertford County
Middle School
Southeast Halifax
High School
Tarboro High
School
Windsor Elementary
South Creek Middle
School
West Bertie
Elementary
Manning
Elementary
Mary Potter Middle
School
School of
Distinction
School of
Distinction
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
45.57%
827
52.41%
852
85.48%
554
84.16%
614
51.44%
720
Met 13 of 13 Targets
58.18%
135
Not Met
(20 of 25 Targets Met)
39.76%
656
Met 13 of 13 Targets
30.82%
301
Met 17 of 17 Targets
46.33%
460
92.68%
295
81.56%
448
83.98%
436
56.37%
655
88.97%
422
67.61%
386
94.78%
345
52.43%
653
62.90%
431
86.81%
728
64.22%
180
Not Met
(14 of 20 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 15 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(11 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 15 Targets Met)
Met 20 of 20 Targets
Not Met
(11 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Met 13 of 13 Targets
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 19 Targets Met)
Not Met
(8 of 13 Target Met)
Met 5 of 5 Targets
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
106
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G31. RLA Cohort 3 Internships, PTLA, 2009–10 School Data
School of
Placement
North Asheboro
Middle
High Point
Central High
School
Hanes Magnet
Middle
Wiley Middle
School
Allen Middle
School
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
56.90%
72.50%
School of Progress
69.90%
52.00%
School of Progress
83.90%
87.70%
School of
Distinction
54.90%
66.30%
School of Progress
57.20%
73.90%
School of Progress
Cone Elementary
51.50%
64.20%
Priority School
58.70%
76.00%
School of Progress
44.70%
67.80%
Priority School
46.30%
71.20%
Priority School
66.10%
77.40%
42.90%
Graham Middle
School
Hairston Middle
School
Montlieu
Elementary
Peeler Open
Elementary
Haw River
Elementary
Hunter
Elementary
Hall-Woodward
Elementary
Northeast
Guilford High
School
Welborn Middle
School
Walkertown
Middle School
Kiser Middle
School
Loflin
Elementary
Kernersville
Elementary
Dudley High
School
Old Town
Elementary
Hillcrest
Elementary
Designation
AYP
Not Met
(26 Of 27 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
48.94%
456
Met 21 Of 21 Targets
60.57%
1287
Met 33 Of 33 Targets
38.37%
860
71.85%
549
76.41%
660
23.50%
420
71.30%
628
91.06%
544
Met 13 Of 13 Targets
81.10%
418
School of Progress
Not Met
(16 Of 17 Targets Met)
48.96%
348
66.70%
Priority School
Met 17 Of 17 Targets
84.30%
395
51.70%
72.90%
Priority School
Met 21 Of 21 Targets
93.44%
408
53.30%
81.70%
School of Progress
Met 21 Of 21 Targets
95.97%
771
72.30%
55.80%
School of Progress
Not Met
(16 Of 17 Targets Met)
47.99%
1122
50.90%
71.70%
School of Progress
72.41%
543
63.30%
77.90%
School of Progress
56.16%
594
65.60%
78.20%
School of Progress
54.11%
758
54.60%
78.20%
School of Progress
Met 17 Of 17 Targets
70.02%
361
62.40%
81.80%
School of Progress
Met 29 Of 29 Targets
59.88%
885
67.50%
38.20%
Priority School
Not Met
(10 Of 17 Targets Met)
68.23%
1493
58.20%
80.60%
School of Progress
Met 21 Of 21 Targets
92.28%
625
57.50%
72.90%
Priority School
Not Met
(26 Of 27 Targets Met)
67.50%
582
Not Met
(24 Of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(24 Of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 Of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(27 Of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(24 Of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 Of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 Of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(26 Of 29 Targets Met)
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
107
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G32. RLA Cohort 3 Internships, PTLA, 20010–11 School Data
School of
Placement
North Asheboro
Middle
High Point Central
High School
Hanes Magnet
Middle
Wiley Middle
School
Allen Middle
School
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
54.70%
74.10%
67.10%
48.50%
83.90%
87.50%
57.30%
65.00%
57.40%
68.90%
Cone Elementary
46.90%
62.20%
Priority School
56.90%
74.60%
School of
Progress
42.50%
60.10%
Priority School
49.20%
74.30%
Priority School
70.90%
80.20%
School of
Progress
41.80%
65.50%
Priority School
59.10%
86.70%
50.70%
79.20%
71.20%
51.90%
55.80%
72.50%
65.50%
82.40%
65.00%
80.40%
58.30%
79.80%
61.70%
83.90%
68.40%
39.90%
No Recognition
60.10%
79.90%
No Recognition
58.10%
72.30%
School of
Progress
Graham Middle
School
Hairston Middle
School
Montlieu
Elementary
Peeler Open
Elementary
Haw River
Elementary
Hunter Elementary
Hall-Woodward
Elementary
Northeast Guilford
High School
Welborn Middle
School
Walkertown Middle
School
Kiser Middle
School
Loflin Elementary
Kernersville
Elementary
Dudley High
School
Old Town
Elementary
Hillcrest
Elementary
Designation
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Distinction
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
No Recognition
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
AYP
Not Met
(20 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(30 of 37 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(21 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Met 17 of 17 Targets
Not Met
(13 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(11 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(3 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(21 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 25 Targets Met)
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
69.89%
503
63.74%
1294
28.94%
1063
73.78%
489
78.35%
686
94.41%
395
76.62%
677
90.03%
571
88.44%
406
57.76%
357
87.61%
433
95.75%
424
96.96%
782
52.51%
1097
79.38%
522
58.19%
608
58.81%
824
78.40%
364
62.85%
871
75.71%
1449
94.88%
614
76.78%
530
108
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G33. RLA Cohort 3 Internships, PTLA, 2011–12 School Data
School of
Placement
North Asheboro
Middle
High Point Central
High School
Hanes Magnet
Middle
Wiley Middle
School
Allen Middle
School
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
52.10%
67.20%
72.50%
53.60%
82.80%
85.40%
52.30%
60.70%
Priority School
53.90%
71.40%
School of
Progress
Cone Elementary
39.30%
54.50%
Low Performing
55.30%
76.40%
School of
Progress
46.60%
63.90%
Priority School
58.70%
82.20%
61.70%
79.60%
41.30%
55.00%
Priority School
54.80%
87.50%
School of
Progress
48.20%
77.60%
No Recognition
70.30%
63.70%
No Recognition
53.80%
77.40%
School of
Progress
59.10%
72.20%
No Recognition
63.70%
78.60%
No Recognition
59.20%
81.50%
70.00%
85.00%
64.40%
52.80%
53.20%
79.40%
64.60%
83.60%
Graham Middle
School
Hairston Middle
School
Montlieu
Elementary
Peeler Open
Elementary
Haw River
Elementary
Hunter Elementary
Hall-Woodward
Elementary
Northeast Guilford
High School
Welborn Middle
School
Walkertown Middle
School
Kiser Middle
School
Loflin Elementary
Kernersville
Elementary
Dudley High
School
Old Town
Elementary
Hillcrest
Elementary
Designation
Priority School
AYP
Not Met
(16 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(21 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(33 of 77 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 25 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
77.19%
534
63.11%
1367
28.48%
1078
77.05%
462
81.65%
692
94.46%
402
76.63%
644
90.07%
626
88.78%
445
56.70%
376
90.53%
467
93.27%
438
96.88%
762
52.98%
1060
79.54%
508
58.95%
686
58.10%
947
82.13%
343
Met 29 of 29 Targets
67.46%
877
Met 16 of 16 Targets
77.83%
1373
No Recognition
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets Met)
97.72%
591
School of
Progress
Met 21 of 21 Targets
78.56%
486
School of
Progress
School of
Distinction
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met 18 of 21
Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(21 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 27 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 17 Targets Met)
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
109
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G34. RLA Cohort 3 Internships, SLA, 2009–10 School Data
School of Placement
Clarkton School of
Discovery
South Columbus
High School
Acme-Delco
Elementary
Elizabeth Cashwell
Elementary
Brentwood
Elementary
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
75.40%
81.90%
School of Progress
89.60%
76.80%
School of
Distinction
AYP
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 17 Targets Met)
66.50%
82.40%
School of Progress
50.50%
64.10%
Priority School
51.30%
64.30%
Priority School
67.30%
72.80%
No Recognition
54.00%
73.90%
School of Progress
57.60%
65.80%
No Recognition
71.10%
71.00%
School of Progress
N/A
N/A
N/A
87.10%
94.80%
76.60%
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
55.23%
324
49.36%
690
Met 17 of 17 Targets
68.92%
352
Met 19 of 19 Targets
77.23%
744
76.94%
524
35.96%
876
67.53%
598
59.00%
444
48.11%
1209
N/A
N/A
N/A
School of
Distinction
Met 17 of 17 Targets
35.91%
683
66.80%
School of Progress
Met 21 of 21 Targets
48.79%
1348
62.90%
78.40%
School of Progress
67.94%
645
West Middle School
57.50%
70.10%
School of Progress
58.74%
463
New Century Middle
79.30%
88.00%
40.00%
905
78.90%
86.90%
24.00%
517
83.90%
69.10%
31.00%
1174
64.80%
84.90%
School of
Distinction
School of
Distinction
School of
Distinction
School of Progress
81.00%
205
Peterson Elementary
48.80%
69.60%
Priority School
85.44%
522
Tabor City
Elementary
67.60%
75.70%
School of Progress
70.78%
493
Highland Elementary
Lillington-Shawtown
Elementary
South Harnett
Elementary
Western Harnett
High School
Sandy Grove Middle
School
Tramway
Elementary
Lee County High
School
B. T. Bullock
Elementary
Sandhills Farm Life
Elementary
Union Pines High
School
Elise Middle School
Not Met
(12 of 15 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 19 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(25 of 27 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(24 of 25 Targets Met)
Met 13 of 13 Targets
Not Met
(12 of 15 Targets Met)
Met 21 of 21 Targets
Not Met
(19 of 23 Targets Met)
Met 17 of 17 Targets
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
110
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G35. RLA Cohort 3 Internships, SLA, 2010–11 School Data
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
74.00%
77.10%
No Recognition
72.20%
69.70%
No Recognition
64.30%
78.90%
No Recognition
57.50%
69.40%
No Recognition
52.40%
65.70%
Priority School
66.50%
70.00%
No Recognition
53.60%
68.30%
No Recognition
61.60%
69.10%
No Recognition
74.60%
74.10%
School of Progress
N/A
N/A
N/A
84.70%
91.90%
School of
Distinction
75.80%
65.60%
School of Progress
66.00%
85.70%
School of Progress
West Middle School
62.10%
70.50%
School of Progress
New Century Middle
80.50%
88.80%
81.10%
89.60%
88.50%
77.80%
Elise Middle School
65.20%
87.30%
School of Progress
Peterson Elementary
55.50%
72.30%
No Recognition
Tabor City
Elementary
68.80%
79.30%
School of Progress
School of Placement
Clarkton School of
Discovery
South Columbus
High School
Acme-Delco
Elementary
Elizabeth Cashwell
Elementary
Brentwood
Elementary
Highland Elementary
Lillington-Shawtown
Elementary
South Harnett
Elementary
Western Harnett
High School
Sandy Grove Middle
School
Tramway
Elementary
Lee County High
School
B. T. Bullock
Elementary
Sandhills Farm Life
Elementary
Union Pines High
School
School of
Distinction
School of
Distinction
School of
Distinction
AYP
Not Met
(13 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 15 Targets Met)
Not Met
(11 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(11 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
61.61%
349
58.43%
743
73.85%
357
79.14%
715
80.62%
516
38.69%
874
69.44%
619
64.81%
505
50.26%
1217
N/A
N/A
N/A
Met17 of 17 Targets
35.72%
691
51.24%
1341
69.92%
630
67.17%
466
39.96%
533
24.29%
534
35.05%
1181
82.32%
210
91.08%
529
77.11%
497
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(24 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(11 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Note: Sandy Grove Middle opened in 2013-14.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
111
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table G36. RLA Cohort 3 Internships, SLA, 2011–12 School Data
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
69.70%
79.70%
No Recognition
93.50%
86.50%
Honor School of
Excellence
62.30%
77.70%
School of Progress
56.80%
74.80%
School of Progress
59.40%
78.20%
School of Progress
69.40%
77.50%
School of Progress
56.70%
68.00%
School of Progress
64.10%
73.00%
School of Progress
79.70%
73.10%
School of Progress
N/A
N/A
N/A
80.20%
89.80%
No Recognition
64.20%
57.40%
School of Progress
66.40%
84.10%
School of Progress
West Middle School
62.10%
77.40%
School of Progress
New Century Middle
77.80%
87.30%
79.50%
91.60%
91.60%
89.50%
68.90%
Peterson Elementary
Tabor City
Elementary
School of Placement
Clarkton School of
Discovery
South Columbus
High School
Acme-Delco
Elementary
Elizabeth Cashwell
Elementary
Brentwood
Elementary
Highland Elementary
Lillington-Shawtown
Elementary
South Harnett
Elementary
Western Harnett
High School
Sandy Grove Middle
School
Tramway
Elementary
Lee County High
School
B. T. Bullock
Elementary
Sandhills Farm Life
Elementary
Union Pines High
School
Elise Middle School
AYP
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
54.49%
357
60.52%
752
80.75%
360
81.17%
679
77.85%
492
39.22%
871
69.29%
598
59.26%
526
48.24%
1194
N/A
N/A
N/A
Met 21 of 21 Targets
39.16%
692
55.20%
1361
73.78%
643
66.81%
497
Met 21 of 21 Targets
34.03%
547
Met 13 of 13 Targets
27.19%
545
No Recognition
Met 16 of 16 Targets
35.58%
1150
84.40%
School of Progress
77.56%
209
48.80%
68.40%
Priority School
92.82%
603
66.40%
75.70%
No Recognition
Met 21 of 21Targets
Not Met
(17 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets Met)
79.30%
452
School of
Distinction
School of
Distinction
Met 19 of 19 Targets
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
Met 13 of 13 Targets
Not Met
(22 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(24 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(21 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(24 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(21 of 25 Targets Met)
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
112
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Appendix H. Job Placements for RLA Cohort 1 and Cohort 2
Table H1. NELA Cohort 1 Job Placements
Name
Mark Barfield
School of Hire
LEA
Position
Melissa Harris
Richardson
Northampton County High Northampton
Aurelian Springs
Halifax
Elementary
Aurelian Springs
Halifax
Elementary
Ryan Hurley
Northside Elementary
Warren
Demetra Lassiter
Central Elementary
Northampton
Mark Long
Northampton County High Northampton
Douglas Miller
N/A
Carol Mizelle
N/A
Assistant Principal
Director of
Roanoke Rapids
Transportation RR
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
Annabel Bello
Assistant Principal
Special Needs Teacher
Assistant Principal
Transformation
Coordinator
Teacher Grade 4
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
113
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table H2. PTLA Cohort 1 Job Placements
Name
School of Hire
Jamyle Acevedo (“Kathy”) Union Hill Elementary
Adrea Alexander
High Point Central High
Michelle Breen
Forest Park Elementary
Thomas Brookshire
(“Jeff”)
Jason Cayton (“Todd”)
Hanes Middle
Eastern Middle
Ronnie Christian
WSFCS Career Center
Amy Day
Reedy Fork Elementary
Melvin Diggs
Ray Street Academy
Cassandra Dobson
Konnoak Elementary
LEA
Guilford
Guilford
Winston-Salem
Forsyth
Winston-Salem
Forsyth
Guilford
Winston-Salem
Forsyth
Position
ESL Teacher
Assistant Principal
Learning Team
Facilitator
Assistant Principal
Assistant Principal
Assistant Principal
Hall-Woodward
Elementary
Philo-Hill Magnet
Academy
Curriculum
Facilitator
Alamance-Burlington Assistant Principal
Winston-Salem
Assistant Principal
Forsyth
Winston-Salem
Assistant Principal
Forsyth
Winston-Salem
Assistant Principal
Forsyth
Shadonna Gunn
Grove Park Elementary
Alamance-Burlington
Jusmar Maness
Southern Middle
Guilford
Charnelle Newkirk
Oak Hill Elementary
Ian Olsen
Wiley Middle
Guilford
Winston-Salem
Forsyth
Stephanie Rakes
Ragsdale High
Chameeka Smith
Graham High
Curriculum
Facilitator/Reading
Alamance-Burlington Assistant Principal
Ashley Triplett
Aycock Middle
Guilford
Assistant Principal
Weaver Walden
Ferndale Middle
Guilford
Assistant Principal
Cynthia White
Hollis Wroblewski
(“Holly”)
Jones Elementary
Guilford
Assistant Principal
Haw River Elementary
Alamance-Burlington Assistant Principal
Scarlet Evans
Keisha Gabriel
Guilford
Principal
Assistant Principal
Assistant Principal
Assistant Principal
Guilford
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
114
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table H3. SLA Cohort 1 Job Placements
Name
School of Hire
LEA
Position
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.
N/A=5 or fewer students in a category and results are not shown.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
115
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table H4. NELA Cohort 2 Job Placements
Name
School of Hire
LEA
Position
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
South Edgecombe
Middle
JF Webb High School of
Health and Life Sciences
Manning Elementary
Martin
Assistant Principal
Teacher Grade 6
SS/Science
Darren Gemzik
Elizabeth Payne
Moran
Lauren Greenhill
Edgecombe
Granville
Assistant Principal
Roanoke Rapids
Assistant Principal
Notes:
N/A=5 or fewer students in a category and results are not shown.
Jennifer Berry is Assistant Principal of Red Oak Elementary and Swift Creek Elementary simultaneously.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
116
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table H5. PTLA Cohort 2 Job Placements
Name
School of Hire
LEA
Position
Kristen Gravely
Graham High
Alamance-Burlington
Assistant Principal
Thomas Kazimir
Graham High
Alamance-Burlington
Assistant Principal
Dana Roseboro
Newlin Elementary
Alamance-Burlington
Ben Cawley
N/A
Guilford County
Media Specialist
Mission Possible
Specialist
Vernon Hall
Southeast Guilford
Middle
Ferndale Middle
Darrell Harris
Eastern Guilford Middle
Guilford County
Assistant Principal
Noel Keener
Northeast Guilford High
Guilford County
Assistant Principal
Greta Martin
Janiese
McKenzie
Jamestown Middle
Guilford County
Teacher Grade 7
Northern Guilford High
Guilford County
Assistant Principal
Rashad Slade
N/A
Guilford County
Chelsea Smith
Wiley Elementary
Guilford County
Toks Wall
Rankin Elementary
Kimberly Ashby
Walkertown High
Kathy Bryant
Bolton Elementary
Jonathan
Hegedus
Kernersville Elementary
Larnitha Hunter
Ibraham Elementary
Nicole Kurtz
West Forsyth High
Susan T Miller
Griffith Elementary
Colin Tribby
The Downtown School
Guilford County
WinstonSalem/Forsyth
WinstonSalem/Forsyth
WinstonSalem/Forsyth
WinstonSalem/Forsyth
WinstonSalem/Forsyth
WinstonSalem/Forsyth
WinstonSalem/Forsyth
Kevin Conaway
Guilford County
Assistant Principal
Guilford County
Assistant Principal
Director of Instructional
Technology
Assistant Principal
Teacher Grade 5
Assistant Principal
Assistant Principal
Assistant Principal
Assistant Principal
Teacher English III
Learning Team
Facilitator
Assistant Principal
Notes:
N/A=5 or fewer students in a category and results are not shown.
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
117
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table H6. SLA Cohort 2 Job Placements
Name
School of Hire
LEA
Position
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
118
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
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
Low Performing
Priority Schools
Schools of Progress
No Recognition
School of Distinction
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
2008-09
5
8
5
0
0
8/18 met AYP
2009-10
4
4
8
1
1
3/18 met AYP
2010-11
4
3
9
1
1
3/18 met AYP
2011-12
1
7
6
0
4
3/18 met 100%
AMO
X/18 met X%
AYP or AMO
Reading/English
I Range =
29.3%-75.7%
Average = 50%
Reading/English I
Range = 24.5%82.5%
Average = 56.5%
Reading/English
I Range =
17.4%-80.4%
Average = 55.9%
Reading/English
I Range =
28.4%-84.5%
Average = 55.9%
Reading/English I
Range = XX%XX%
Average = XX%
Mathematics/Alg
ebra I Range =
18.1%-80.9%
Average =
53.2%
Mathematics/Alge
bra I Range =
29.4%-86.6%
Average = 62.5%
Mathematics/Alg
ebra I Range =
28.5%-87.7%
Average = 62.1%
Mathematics/Alg
ebra I Range =
33.7%-84%
Average = 66.4%
Mathematics/Alge
bra I Range =
XX%-XX%
Average = XX%
% students F/RL
Range = 38.9%92.8%
Average = 74.2%
% students F/RL
Range = 41.3%97.3%
Average = 77%
% students F/RL
Range = 46.7%93.4%
Average = 77.9%
% students F/RL
Range = XX%XX%
Average = XX%
School size Range
= 285-812
Average = 491.2
School size
Range = 291-842
Average = 482.7
School size
Range = 290-922
Average = 480.3
School size Range
= XX%-XX%
Average = XX%
% students F/RL
Range = 38.9%93.9%
Average =
70.9%
School size
Range = 178-900
Average = 483.2
2012-13^
Achievement Comparisons
Change from
2008-09 to
2011-12
Change from 201112 to
2012-13^
Reading/English I
Average:
+5.9%
with Range:
-12.9% to +24%
Reading/English I
Change between
years: XX%
Range:
XX% to XX%
Average between
years: +2%
Mathematics/
Algebra I
Average: +13.2%
with Range:
-8.3% to +39.6%
Mathematics/
Algebra I
Change between
years:
XX%
Average between
years: +4.4%
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
119
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table I2. PTLA Cohort 1 Job Placement Schools*
Counties/Schools
per Hire
Low Performing
Priority Schools
Schools of Progress
No Recognition
School of Distinction
AlamanceBurlington = 4
Guilford = 10
Winston-Salem/
Forsyth = 7
Average %
Students
F/RL = 71.4%
Average School
Size = 670
2008-09
3
6
8
2
0
12/20 met AYP
2009-10
1
5
9
3
1
8/19 met AYP
2010-11
0
6
11
2
1
2/20 met AYP
2011-12
0
6
9
4
1
2/20 met AMO
Reading/English
I Range =
17.1%-76.3%
Average =
50.7%
Reading/English I
Range = 31.2%83.9%
Average = 54.7%
Reading/English
I Range =
25.5%-83.9%
Average = 56.3%
Reading/English
I Range =
19.2%-82.8%
Average = 55.3%
Mathematics/Alge
bra I Range =
26.8%-87.7%
Average = 66.2%
Mathematics/Alg
ebra I Range =
34%-87.5%
Average = 70.1%
Mathematics/Alg
ebra I Range =
28%-86.8%
Average = 68.9%
% students F/RL
Range = 38.4%96%
Average = 70%
% students F/RL
Range = 28.9%97.7%
Average = 73.1%
% students F/RL
Range = 28.5%98.6%
Average = 74.7%
School size Range
= 64-1386
Average = 659.2
School size
Range = 72-1365
Average = 677.3
School size
Range = 1121367
Average = 692.3
Mathematics/Alg
ebra 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
2012-13^
X/20 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%
Achievement Comparisons
Change from 200809 to
2011-12
Change from 201112 to
2012-13^
Reading/English I
Average:
+4.6 %
with Range:
-7.5% to +25.6%
Reading/English I
Change between
years: XX%
Range:
XX% to XX%
Average between
years: +1.5%
Mathematics/
Algebra I Average:
+6.6% with Range:
-7.6% to +54.1%
Average between
years: +2.2%
Mathematics/
Algebra I
Change between
years:
XX%
Range:
XX% to XX%
School size
Range
= XX%-XX%
Average =
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.
^Data not available at time of report.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
120
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table I3. SLA Cohort 1 Job Placement Schools*
Counties/Schools
per Hire
Low Performing
Priority Schools
Schools of Progress
No Recognition
School of Distinction
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
2008-09
0
4
13
2
0
10/19 met AYP
2009-10
0
1
11
4
3
6/19 met AYP
2010-11
0
2
8
3
6
2/19 met AYP
2011-12
0
2
8
7
2
2/19 met AMO
Reading/English
I Range =
49.5%-75.8%
Average =
61.9%
Reading/English I
Range = 53.3%85.5%
Average = 65.6%
Reading/English I
Range = 49.1%89.7%
Average = 65.9%
Reading/English I
Range = 41%89.6%
Average = 65.9%
Mathematics/
Algebra I Range
= 35.8%-85.2%
Average = 73.6%
Mathematics/
Algebra I Range
= 30.4%-87.8%
Average = 74.2%
Mathematics/
Algebra I Range
= 41.3%-90.3%
Average = 76.3%
% students F/RL
Range = 28%93%
Average = 63.9%
% students F/RL
Range = 31.2%95.8%
Average = 66.3%
% students F/RL
Range = 33.8%94.6%
Average = 67.4%
School size
Range = 2331989
Average = 766.2
School size
Range = 2132029
Average = 764.1
School size
Range = 2241982
Average = 770.4
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 = 2461949
Average = 764.9
2012-13^
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%
Achievement Comparisons
Change from
2008-09 to
2011-12
Change from
2011-12 to
2012-13^
Reading/
English I
Average:
+4%
with Range:
-16.1% to
+14.6%
Reading/
English I
Change between
years: XX%
Range:
XX% to XX%
Average between
years: +1.3%
Mathematics/
Algebra I
Average: +15.8%
with Range:
-11.3% to
+70.6%
Mathematics/
Algebra I
Change between
years:
XX%
Range:
XX% to XX%
Average between
years: +5.3%
School size
Range = XX%XX%
Average =
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.
^Data not available at time of report.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
121
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table I4. NELA Cohort 2 Job Placement Schools*
Counties/Schools
per Hire
Low Performing
Priority Schools
Schools of Progress
No Recognition
Schools of Distinction
Honor Sch .of Excel.
Edgecombe = 2
Franklin = 1
Granville = 3
Halifax = 1
Martin = 2
Nash = 10
RRGSD = 1
Vance = 1
Average %
Students
F/RL = %
Average School
Size =
2009-10
0
6
9
1
4
0
6/20 met AYP
2010-11
1
2
9
3
4
1
2/20 met AYP
2011-12
2
1
7
6
4
1
9/21 met AYP
X/21 met AMO
X/21 met X%
AYP or AMO
Reading/English
I Range =
37.4%-85.1%
Average =
63.4%
Reading/English I
Range = 39.7%87.5%
Average = 63.9%
Reading/English I
Range = 37.7%91.4%
Average = 66%
Reading/English
I Range = XX%XX%
Average = XX%
Reading/English
I Range =
XX%-XX%
Average =
XX%
Mathematics/Alge
bra I Range =
46.2%-95%
Average = 76.1%
Mathematics/Alge
bra I Range =
48%-94.1%
Average = 75.1%
Mathematics/Alg
ebra I Range =
XX%-XX%
Average = XX%
% students F/RL
Range = 31.7%94.1%
Average = 61.3%
% students F/RL
Range = 30.5%99.4%
Average = 60.8%
% students F/RL
Range = XX%XX%
Average = XX%
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 = 2561184
Average =
603.9
School size
Range = 289-1231
Average = 607.4
School size
Range = 289-1215
Average = 572.2
2012-13^
School size
Range = XX%XX%
Average = XX%
2013-14^
Mathematics/Al
gebra I Range =
XX%-XX%
Average =
XX%
% students F/RL
Range = XX%XX%
Average =
XX%
Achievement Comparisons
Change from
2009-10 to
2012-13^
Change from
2012-13 to
2013-14^
Reading/
English I
Average:
XX%
with Range:
XX% to XX%
Reading/
English I
Change between
years: XX%
Range:
XX% to XX%
Average between
years: XX%
Mathematics/
Algebra I
Average:
XX%
with Range:
XX% to XX%
Average between
years: XX%
Mathematics/
Algebra I
Change between
years:
XX%
Range:
XX% to XX%
School size
Range = XX%XX%
Average =
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.
^Data not available at time of report.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
122
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table I5. PTLA Cohort 2 Job Placement Schools*
Counties/Schools
per Hire
Low Performing
Priority Schools
Schools of Progress
No Recognition
Schools of Distinction
Honor Sch. of Excel.
AlamanceBurlington = 3
Guilford = 8
Winston-Salem/
Forsyth = 7
Average %
Students
F/RL = %
Average School
Size =
2009-10
0
3
9
2
1
2
6/17 met AYP
2010-11
0
3
8
2
2
2
4/17 met AYP
2011-12
0
2
6
5
2
3
9/18 met AYP
X/18 met AMO
X/18 met X%
AYP or AMO
Reading/English
I Range =
25.7%-92.1%
Average =
64.6%
Reading/English
I Range = 38.3%95%
Average = 66.4%
Reading/English I
Range = 42.4%94.1%
Average = 67.8%
Reading/English
I Range = XX%XX%
Average = XX%
Mathematics/Alg
ebra I Range =
51.9%-94.3%
Average = 74.3%
Mathematics/Alge
bra I Range =
47.4%-95%
Average = 74.3%
Mathematics/Alg
ebra I Range =
XX%-XX%
Average = XX%
Reading/English
I Range =
XX%-XX%
Average =
XX%
% students F/RL
Range = 8.5%98%
Average = 61.8%
% students F/RL
Range = 9.7%96.6%
Average = 61.7%
% students F/RL
Range = XX%XX%
Average = XX%
Mathematics/Alg
ebra I Range =
50%-95%
Average =
71.6%
% students F/RL
Range = 6.3%98.9%
Average =
58.9%
School size
Range = 2441950
Average = 809.8
School size
Range = 2381912
Average = 820.1
School size
Range = 222-1953
Average = 804.2
2012-13^
School size
Range = XX%XX%
Average = XX%
2013-14^
Mathematics/Al
gebra I Range =
XX%-XX%
Average =
XX%
% students F/RL
Range = XX%XX%
Average =
XX%
Achievement Comparisons
Change from
2009-10 to
2012-13^
Change from
2012-13 to
2013-14^
Reading/English
I
Average:
XX%
with Range:
XX% to XX%
Reading/English
I
Change between
years: XX%
Range:
XX% to XX%
Average between
years: XX%
Mathematics/
Algebra I
Average:
XX%
with Range:
XX% to XX%
Average between
years: XX%
Mathematics/
Algebra I
Change between
years:
XX%
Range:
XX% to XX%
School size
Range = XX%XX%
Average =
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.
^Data not available at time of report.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
123
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table I6. SLA Cohort 2 Job Placement Schools*
Counties/Schools per
Hire
Low Performing
Priority Schools
Schools of Progress
No Recognition
Schools of Distinction
Honor Sch. of Excel.
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 =
2009-10
0
2
14
1
2
0
7/19 met AYP
2010-11
0
3
11
2
3
0
0/19 met AYP
2011-12
0
3
10
5
2
0
4/20 met AYP
Reading/English
I Range =
37.4%-83.9%
Average =
64.3%
Reading/English
I Range =
41.3%-88.5%
Average = 64.1%
Reading/English I
Range = 47.3%91.6%
Average = 65.2%
Mathematics/Alg
ebra I Range =
61.2%-91.3%
Average = 76.9%
Mathematics/Algeb
ra I Range =
50.9%-90.3%
Average = 72.7%
% students F/RL
Range = 35.1%86.7%
Average = 65.2%
% students F/RL
Range = 35.6%91.6%
Average = 66.6%
School size
Range = 2131615
Average = 672.5
School size
Range = 224-1647
Average = 724.1
Mathematics/Alg
ebra I Range =
58.2%-90.3%
Average =
76.6%
% students F/RL
Range = 31%86.5%
Average = 63%
School size
Range = 2331619
Average = 678.4
2012-13^
X/20 met AMO
2013-14^
Reading/English
I 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%
Mathematics/Al
gebra I Range =
XX%-XX%
Average =
XX%
% students F/RL
Range = XX%XX%
Average =
XX%
% students F/RL
Range = XX%XX%
Average =
XX%
School size
Range = XX%XX%
Average =
XX%
School size
Range = XX%XX%
Average =
XX%
Achievement Comparisons
Change from
2009-10 to
2012-13^
Change from
2012-13 to
2013-14^
Reading/
English I
Average:
XX%
with Range:
XX% to XX%
Reading/
English I
Change between
years: XX%
Range:
XX% to XX%
Average between
years: XX%
Mathematics/
Algebra I
Average:
XX%
with Range:
XX% to XX%
Average between
years: 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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
124
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 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
Name
Total Change in
Percentages
English I/
Algebra I/
Reading
Mathematics
Melissa Harris
Richardson
School of Hire
Northampton County
High School *
Aurelian Springs
Elementary
Aurelian Springs
Elementary
Ryan Hurley
Northside Elementary
Warren
Central Elementary
Northampton
Northampton County
High School *
Northampton
Douglas Miller
N/A
Roanoke Rapids
Carol Mizelle
N/A
Bertie
Director of
Transportation RR
Instructional Coach
Sean Murphy
William R Davie Middle
Warren County High
School
Northwest Halifax High
School
Ahoskie Elementary
Halifax
7th Grade Teacher
6.60%
13.90%
Warren
Assistant Principal
24.00%
35.80%
Halifax
Assistant Principal
9.00%
20.40%
Hertford
5th Grade Teacher
3.00%
13.50%
Ahoskie Elementary
Hertford
Assistant Principal
3.00%
13.50%
N/A
Warren
SIG Director
N/A
N/A
Hertford County High
School
Hertford
Assistant Principal
21.40%
39.60%
Franklinton High School
Franklin
Assistant Principal
8.80%
28.30%
William R Davie Middle
M.B. Hubbard
Elementary
Central Elementary
Halifax
7th Grade Teacher
6.60%
13.90%
Nash
Assistant Principal
-6.20%
-2.00%
Northampton
2nd Grade Teacher
-12.90%
-6.10%
Inborden Elementary
Halifax
Assistant Principal
-0.900%
-8.30%
Chaloner Middle School
Roanoke Rapids
Assistant Principal
4.70%
3.10%
Mark Barfield
Annabel Bello
DeMetra Lassiter
Mark Long
Tracey Neal
Erin Swanson
Gonzalo Pitpit
Kim Scott
Ebony Spivey
Jason
Mae Rose
Erica Staine
Shoulders
Hope Walker
Yolanda Wiggins
Cecilya Williams
Christina Williams
Shelley Williams
LEA
Position
Northampton
Assistant Principal
19.00%
35.30%
Halifax
Special Needs
Teacher
7.40%
7.20%
Halifax
Assistant Principal
7.40%
7.20%
0.00%
-6.60%
-12.90%
-6.10%
19.00%
35.30%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Transformation
Coordinator
4th Grade Teacher
Assistant Principal
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
125
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J2. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, PTLA, Total Change in Percentages, 2008–2012
Intern Name
Jamyle Acevedo
“Kathy”
Adrea Alexander
Michelle Breen
Thomas Brookshire
“Jeff”
Jason Cayton “Todd”
School of Hire
LEA
Position
Union Hill Elementary
Guilford
ESL Teacher
-6.30%
-7.60%
High School Point
Central High School
Guilford
Assistant Principal
15.70%
-4.50%
Winston-Salem
Forsyth
Winston-Salem
Forsyth
Guilford
Winston-Salem
Forsyth
Learning Team
Facilitator
8.80%
15.70%
Assistant Principal
6.50%
6.90%
Assistant Principal
1.70%
5.00%
Assistant Principal
N/A
N/A
Curriculum
Facilitator
-2.50%
-3.00%
Assistant Principal
2.10%
-6.10%
Assistant Principal
-1.60%
0.20%
Assistant Principal
2.00%
3.30%
Assistant Principal
7.80%
18.20%
Principal
-7.50%
-3.30%
Assistant Principal
6.80%
6.10%
Assistant Principal
25.60%
47.60%
Assistant Principal
2.60%
-3.00%
Curriculum
Facilitator/ Reading
13.10%
54.10%
Assistant Principal
10.80%
12.30%
Assistant Principal
6.00%
4.10%
Forest Park Elementary
Hanes Middle
Eastern Middle
Ronnie Christian
WSFCS Career Center
Amy Day
Reedy Fork Elementary
Melvin Diggs
Ray Street Academy*
Cassandra Dobson
Konnoak Elementary
Scarlet Evans
Keisha Gabriel
Hall-Woodward
Elementary
Philo-Hill Magnet
Academy**
Shadonna Gunn
Grove Park Elementary
Jusmar Maness
Southern Middle
Charnelle Newkirk
Ian Olsen
Total Change in
Percentages
English I/
Algebra I/
Reading Mathematics
Oak Hill Elementary
Wiley Middle
Stephanie Rakes
Ragsdale High School
Chameeka Smith
Graham High School
Guilford
AlamanceBurlington
Winston-Salem
Forsyth
Winston-Salem
Forsyth
Winston-Salem
Forsyth
AlamanceBurlington
Guilford
Guilford
Winston-Salem
Forsyth
Guilford
Ashley Triplett
Aycock Middle
AlamanceBurlington
Guilford
Weaver Walden
Ferndale Middle
Guilford
Assistant Principal
1.10%
0.50%
Cynthia White
Hollis Wroblewsk
“Holly”
Jones Elementary
Guilford
AlamanceBurlington
Assistant Principal
-5.20%
-7.40%
Assistant Principal
4.00%
-7.40%
Haw River Elementary
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
126
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J3. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, SLA, Total Change in Percentages, 2008–2012
Name
Angela D. Wright
Robert Forrest Breyer
Dante Pool
Jennifer C. Purvis
Maresa Dutton
Phillips
Lawrence Leroy
Smalls II
Lamonica Tillery
Evan L. Roush
Adam Michael
Mowery
School of Hire
Boone Trail
Elementary
Pinecrest High
School
Pinecrest High
School
North Moore High
School
Lilesville Elementary
E.E. Smith High
School
Alderman Road
Elementary
Cumberland Mills
Elementary
Angier Elementary
Total Change in
Percentages
English I/
Algebra I/
Reading
Mathematics
LEA
Position
Harnett
Assistant Principal
-6.60%
-11.30%
Moore
Assistant Principal
13.80%
70.60%
Moore
Assistant Principal
13.80%
70.60%
Moore
Principal
12.30%
38.10%
Anson
Principal
4.80%
10.40%
Cumberland
Assistant Principal
14.20%
39.20%
Cumberland
Assistant Principal
1.70%
4.70%
Cumberland
Assistant Principal
14.60%
14.70%
Harnett
Assistant Principal
-16.10%
-10.80%
Montgomery
Assistant Principal
-10.60%
0.40%
Hoke
Assistant Principal
0.30%
2.70%
Whiteville City
Principal
-5.20%
2.60%
Columbus
Principal
Director of grades 3–
5 for LEA
12.30%
5.20%
N/A
N/A
Dianna W. Bellamy
Green Ridge
Elementary
Sandy Grove
Elementary
Edgewood
Elementary
Tabor City Middle
Camilla Price House
N/A
Harnett
Penny McNeill-Lind
J.R. Ingram
Elementary
Lee
Assistant Principal
-1.20%
-2.60%
SanLee Middle
Lee
Assistant Principal
10.80%
12.80%
Robeson
Assistant Principal
7.80%
21.80%
Robeson
Assistant Principal
0.70%
-0.40%
Richmond
Assistant Principal
N/A
31.80%
Scotland
Assistant Principal
4.30%
0.40%
Amy Lynn Parsons
David Renninger
Shelly F. Cullipher
Elizabeth Faulk
Bridges
Cynthia Ann Lewis
Tara Dee Bullard
Joyce Morgan McRae
Barbara Denise
Adams
Red Springs High
School
Piney Grove
Elementary
Richmond County
Senior High School *
I. Ellis Johnson
Elementary
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
127
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J4. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, NELA, 2008–09 School Data
School of
Placement
Northampton
County High
School*
Aurelian Springs
Elementary
Northside
Elementary
Central
Elementary
Warren County
High School
Northwest Halifax
High School
Ahoskie
Elementary
Hertford County
High School
Franklinton High
School
Inborden
Elementary
Chaloner Middle
William R. Davie
Middle School
M. B. Hubbard
Elementary
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
AYP
53.20%
48.20%
Priority School
Not Met
(6 of 13 Targets Met)
64.52%
451
40.70%
58.20%
Priority School
Met 13 of 13 Targets
83.30%
388
42.60%
60.10%
Priority School
Not Met
(11 of 13 Targets Met)
93.92%
380
58.60%
74.70%
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
74.62%
178
44.60%
18.10%
Low Performing
67.08%
645
43.40%
25.70%
Low Performing
63.15%
797
53.10%
64.00%
Priority School
73.60%
480
62.10%
29.50%
Priority School
64.24%
900
75.70%
53.20%
School of Progress
38.91%
775
29.30%
42.00%
Low Performing
87.15%
375
62.70%
80.90%
School of Progress
48.44%
607
32.00%
41.00%
Low Performing
78.02%
344
63.60%
75.60%
School of Progress
64.49%
537
Not Met
(8 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(6 of 13 Targets Met)
Met 21 of 21 Targets
Not Met
(9 of 15 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 13 Targets Met)
Met 21 of 21 Targets
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
Met 17 of 17 Targets
School
Size
*Did not open until 2011–12; used to be Northampton High East so that data is used.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
128
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J5. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, NELA, 2009–10 School Data
School of
Placement
Northampton
County High
School*
Aurelian Springs
Elementary
Northside
Elementary
Central
Elementary
Warren County
High School
Northwest Halifax
High School
Ahoskie
Elementary
Hertford County
High School
Franklinton High
School
Inborden
Elementary
Chaloner Middle
School
William R. Davie
Middle School
M. B. Hubbard
Elementary
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
AYP
75.80%
77.50%
School of Progress
Not Met
(9 of 13 Targets Met)
69.35%
450
45.50%
59.50%
Priority School
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
86.70%
418
49.70%
66.30%
Priority School
Met 13 of 13 Targets
82.29%
363
53.80%
73.50%
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
92.77%
285
71.10%
52.40%
Priority School
65.34%
529
49.30%
30.50%
Low Performing
65.43%
737
59.40%
68.80%
School of Progress
78.47%
481
76.40%
68.80%
School of Progress
67.95%
800
82.50%
77.60%
School of
Distinction
38.87%
812
24.50%
29.40%
Low Performing
86.29%
376
69.20%
86.60%
School of Progress
44.87%
578
35.00%
43.10%
Low Performing
80.94%
436
55.00%
67.90%
No Recognition
67.79%
506
Not Met
(12 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(4 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
School
Size
*Did not open until 2011–12; used to be Northampton High East so that data is used.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
129
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J6. RLA Cohort 1, NELA Job Placements, 2010–11 School Data
School of
Placement
Northampton
County High
School*
Aurelian Springs
Elementary
Northside
Elementary
Central
Elementary
Warren County
High School
Northwest Halifax
High School
Ahoskie
Elementary
Hertford County
High School
Franklinton High
School
Inborden
Elementary
Chaloner Middle
School
William R. Davie
Middle School
M. B. Hubbard
Elementary
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
AYP
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
79.30%
71.40%
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
76.04%
392
45.90%
57.70%
Priority School
84.87%
411
46.30%
56.50%
Priority School
97.26%
362
55.50%
71.40%
School of Progress
87.50%
291
71.40%
56.30%
No Recognition
67.09%
450
53.20%
28.50%
Low Performing
72.31%
647
59.00%
78.30%
School of Progress
81.67%
518
67.30%
63.30%
School of Progress
65.96%
783
80.40%
77.90%
School of
Distinction
41.27%
842
17.40%
36.70%
Low Performing
88.16%
392
67.50%
87.70%
School of Progress
45.97%
646
32.40%
43.00%
Low Performing
87.44%
427
58.90%
67.60%
School of Progress
73.08%
488
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 13 Targets Met)
Met 13 of 13 Targets
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(11 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 21 Targets Met)
School
Size
*Did not open until 2011–12; used to be Northampton High East so that data is used.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
130
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J7. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, NELA, 20011–12 School Data
School of
Placement
Northampton
County High
School*
Aurelian Springs
Elementary
Northside
Elementary
Central
Elementary
Warren County
High
Northwest Halifax
High School
Ahoskie
Elementary
Hertford County
High
Franklinton High
School
Inborden
Elementary
Chaloner Middle
William R. Davie
Middle School
M. B. Hubbard
Elementary
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
72.20%
Designation
AYP
83.50%
School of
Distinction
Met 15 of 15 Targets
48.10%
65.40%
Priority School
42.60%
53.50%
Priority School
45.70%
68.60%
Priority School
68.60%
53.90%
School of Progress
52.40%
46.10%
School of Progress
56.10%
77.50%
School of Progress
83.50%
69.10%
84.50%
81.50%
28.40%
33.70%
Low Performing
67.40%
84.00%
School of Progress
38.60%
54.90%
Priority School
57.40%
73.60%
School of Progress
School of
Distinction
School of
Distinction
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(8 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 15 Targets Met)
Not Met
(11 of 15 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 21 Targets Met
Not Met
(11 of 19 Targets Met)
Met 20 of 20 Targets
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
77.55%
375
87.42%
414
93.41%
344
86.73%
290
74.73%
455
73.32%
570
82.59%
521
67.70%
747
46.73%
922
91.76%
365
51.44%
720
79.34%
421
75.15%
481
*Did not open until 2011–12; used to be Northampton High East so that data is used.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
131
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J8. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, PTLA, 2008–09 School Data
School of
Placement
Union Hill
Elementary
High Point
Central High
School
Forest Park
Elementary
Hanes Middle
School
Eastern Middle
School
Reedy Fork
Elementary
Konnoak
Elementary
Hall-Woodward
Elementary
Philo-Hill
Magnet
Academy**
Grove Park
Elementary
Southern Middle
School
Oak Hill
Elementary
Wiley Middle
School
Ragsdale High
School
Graham High
School
Aycock Middle
School
Ferndale Middle
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
51.60%
71.60%
Priority School
56.80%
58.10%
School of Progress
31.10%
56.20%
76.30%
Jones Elementary
Haw River
Elementary
Ray Street
Academy*
AYP
Not Met
(12 of 13 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
91.07%
307
Met 17 of 17 Targets
54.50%
1255
Low Performing
Met 21 of 21 Targets
100.00%
500
78.500%
School of Progress
Not Met
(27 of 29 Targets Met)
43.77%
719
54.70%
66.50%
No Recognition
Met 33 of 33 Targets
59.73%
887
61.00%
80.00%
School of Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
53.32%
442
42.30%
71.10%
Priority School
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
88.28%
647
46.20%
74.30%
Priority School
Met21 of 21 Targets
94.710
770
29.90%
49.50%
Priority School
Not Met
(25 of 27 Targets Met)
90.95%
429
65.50%
78.00%
School of Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
64.55%
522
56.10%
71.80%
School of Progress
Met 33 of 33 Targets
32.74%
763
24.10%
39.200%
Low Performing
Not Met
(17 of 23 Targets Met)
98.43%
377
49.70%
63.70%
Priority School
Met 29 of 29 Targets
71.43%
611
64.70%
25.40%
No Recognition
Met 17 of 17 Targets
36.43%
1469
60.70%
35.10%
Priority School
52.18%
794
60.30%
78.40%
School of Progress
61.81%
655
53.00%
68.10%
School of Progress
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(32 of 33 Targets Met)
Met 33 of 33 Targets
73.65%
708
75.60%
85.10%
School of Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
48.80%
682
37.30%
62.40%
Low Performing
Met 25 of 25 Targets
80.33%
429
17.10%
34.10%
No data on NC
Report Card
Not Met
(3 of 4 Targets Met)
57.69%
70
*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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
132
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J9. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, PTLA, 2009–10 School Data
School of
Placement
Union Hill
Elementary
High Point
Central High
Forest Park
Elementary
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
39.20%
57.30%
Low Performing
69.90%
52.00%
School of Progress
31.20%
59.10%
Hanes Middle
83.90%
Eastern Middle
AYP
Not Met
(11 of 17 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
90.42%
441
Met 21 of 21 Targets
60.57%
1287
Priority School
Not Met
(12 of 21 Targets Met)
93.78%
520
87.70%
School of
Distinction
Met 33 of 33 Targets
38.37%
860
55.10%
64.30%
No Recognition
Not Met
(28 of 37 Targets Met)
61.02%
913
59.70%
78.40%
No Recognition
Met 21of 21 Targets
49.89%
482
46.00%
74.20%
Priority School
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
89.23%
612
53.30%
81.70%
School of Progress
Met 21 of 21 Targets
95.97%
771
35.00%
64.20%
Priority School
Not Met
(19 of 25 Targets Met)
91.86%
357
59.10%
76.00%
School of Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
67.60%
521
Southern Middle
56.90%
76.80%
School of Progress
Not Met
(33 of 35 Targets Met)
63.19%
798
Oak Hill
Elementary
34.10%
59.50%
Priority School
Met 19 of 19 Targets
92.51%
389
Wiley Middle
54.90%
66.30%
School of Progress
71.85%
549
Ragsdale High
76.70%
40.00%
School of Progress
38.50%
1386
Graham High
71.10%
61.50%
School of Progress
56.80%
773
Aycock Middle
65.20%
85.80%
School of Progress
68.03%
618
Ferndale Middle
51.80%
64.60%
No Recognition
71.49%
757
Jones Elementary
74.20%
80.40%
School of Progress
47.58%
690
42.90%
66.70%
Priority School
Met 17 of 17 Targets
84.30%
395
34.10%
26.80%
No data on NC
Report Card
No data on NC Report
Card
67.45%
64
Reedy Fork
Elementary
Konnoak
Elementary
Hall-Woodward
Elementary
Philo-Hill
Magnet
Academy**
Grove Park
Elementary
Haw River
Elementary
Ray Street
Academy*
Not Met
(24 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Met 33 of 33 Targets
Not Met
(26 of 33 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
*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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
133
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J10. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, PTLA, 2010–11 School Data
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School of
Placement
Union Hill
Elementary
High Point
Central High
School
Forest Park
Elementary
Hanes Middle
School
Eastern Middle
School
Reedy Fork
Elementary
Konnoak
Elementary
Hall-Woodward
Elementary
Philo-Hill
Magnet
Academy**
Grove Park
Elementary
Southern Middle
School
Oak Hill
Elementary
Wiley Middle
School
Ragsdale High
School
Graham High
School
Aycock Middle
School
Ferndale Middle
School
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
AYP
48.50%
62.90%
Priority School
Met 15 of 15 Targets
91.65%
456
67.10%
48.50%
School of Progress
Not Met
(15 of 23 Targets Met)
63.74%
1294
39.80%
69.70%
Priority School
97.71%
540
83.90%
87.50%
School of
Distinction
28.94%
1063
56.40%
69.90%
School of Progress
65.02%
943
60.10%
77.90%
No Recognition
59.38%
521
46.20%
69.80%
Priority School
90.47%
625
50.70%
79.20%
School of Progress
96.96%
782
39.50%
70.20%
Priority School
93.87%
304
53.50%
75.20%
Priority School
73.90%
540
59.00%
75.10%
School of Progress
67.84%
783
47.80%
79.60%
School of Progress
97.73%
415
57.30%
65.00%
School of Progress
73.78%
489
82.00%
75.40%
School of Progress
43.88%
1365
76.40%
63.10%
School of Progress
61.09%
753
64.10%
82.50%
School of Progress
69.66%
635
54.70%
69.30%
School of Progress
73.82%
833
Jones Elementary
71.80%
81.00%
School of Progress
52.97%
699
41.80%
65.50%
Priority School
87.61%
433
25.50%
34.00%
No Recognition
72.58%
72
Haw River
Elementary
Ray Street
Academy*
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(30 of 37 Targets Met)
Not Met
(27 of 33 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(11 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(25 of 35 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 29 Targets Met)
Met 17 of 17 Targets
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(25 of 33 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(2 of 4 Targets Met)
School
Size
*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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
134
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J11. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, PTLA, 2011–12 School Data
School of
Placement
Union Hill
Elementary
High Point
Central High
School
Forest Park
Elementary
Hanes Middle
School
Eastern Middle
School
Reedy Fork
Elementary
Konnoak
Elementary
Hall-Woodward
Elementary
Philo-Hill
Magnet
Academy**
Grove Park
Elementary
Southern Middle
School
Oak Hill
Elementary
Wiley Middle
School
Ragsdale High
School
Graham High
School
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
45.30%
64.00%
Priority School
72.50%
53.600%
School of Progress
39.90%
71.90%
Priority School
82.80%
85.40%
School of
Distinction
56.40%
71.500%
School of Progress
58.50%
76.30%
School of Progress
40.70%
71.30%
Priority School
48.20%
77.60%
No Recognition
37.70%
67.70%
Priority School
58.00%
74.70%
School of Progress
62.90%
77.90%
School of Progress
49.70%
86.80%
School of Progress
52.30%
60.70%
Priority School
77.80%
79.50%
No Recognition
71.50%
47.40%
School of Progress
Aycock Middle
66.30%
82.50%
School of Progress
Ferndale Middle
54.10%
68.60%
No Recognition
Jones Elementary
70.40%
77.70%
School of Progress
41.30%
55.00%
Priority School
19.20%
28.00%
No Recognition
Haw River
Elementary
Ray Street
Academy*
AYP
Not Met
(10 of 15 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
91.27%
483
63.11%
1367
98.58%
573
28.48%
1078
66.77%
83
64.62%
522
92.45%
684
96.88%
762
93.02%
258
74.46%
551
72.43%
845
97.91%
431
77.05%
462
Met 20 of 20 Targets
45.01%
1311
Met 23 of 23 Targets
54.91%
785
72.39%
588
74.67%
867
54.83%
716
90.53%
467
83.95%
112
Not Met
(21 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(33 of 37 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 33 Targets Met)
Not Met
(21 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(31 of 37 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(29 of 33 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 33 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(0 of 2 Targets Met)
*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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
135
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J12. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, SLA, 2008–09 School Data
School of
Placement
Boone Trail
Elementary
Pinecrest High
School
North Moore High
School
Lilesville
Elementary
E.E. Smith High
School
Alderman Road
Elementary
Cumberland Mills
Elementary
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
AYP
56.40%
76.60%
No Recognition
Met 23 of 23 Targets
75.80%
14.30%
School of
Progress
68.50%
40.90%
No Recognition
52.20%
54.30%
Priority School
65.90%
36.40%
Not Met
(12 of 19 Targets Met)
Not Met
(11 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(8 of 13 Targets Met)
69.30%
79.50%
49.50%
64.20%
Angier Elementary
57.10%
Green Ridge
Elementary
Sandy Grove
Elementary
Edgewood
Elementary
Tabor City Middle
School
J.R. Ingram
Elementary
SanLee Middle
School
Red Springs High
School
Piney Grove
Elementary
Richmond County
Senior High*
I. Ellis Johnson
Elementary
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
61.78%
602
27.23%
1949
47.47%
552
74.40%
337
63.32%
1132
Met 21 of 21 Targets
54.97%
733
Priority School
Met 19 of 19 Targets
66.61%
637
69.80%
Priority School
Not Met
(25 of 27 Targets Met)
56.25%
250
63.10%
79.80%
School of
Progress
Met 21 of 21 Targets
81.96%
427
50.50%
70.90%
Priority School
Met 21 of 21 Targets
59.12%
626
72.20%
80.60%
Met 21 of 21 Targets
62.91%
554
51.60%
75.40%
Met 17 of 17 Targets
75.21%
246
68.30%
83.30%
Met 25 of 25 Targets
54.00%
717
64.30%
77.50%
63.00%
779
57.30%
58.20%
55.05%
655
53.80%
77.80%
Met 17 of 17 Targets
74.17%
590
N/A
9.50%
Not Met
(14 of 19 Targets Met)
53.42%
1436
62.00%
85.40%
Met 13 of 13 Targets
94.85%
362
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
Not Met
(26 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(5 of 17 Targets Met)
*Richmond County Senior High excluded from English analysis due to missing English scores for 2008–09 and 2009–10
school years.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
136
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J13. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, SLA, 2009–10 School Data
School of
Placement
Boone Trail
Elementary
Pinecrest High
School
North Moore High
School
Lilesville
Elementary
E.E. Smith High
School
Alderman Road
Elementary
Cumberland Mills
Elementary
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
56.50%
70.50%
No Recognition
85.50%
72.20%
School of
Distinction
79.60%
69.70%
No Recognition
56.80%
70.50%
School of
Progress
73.50%
64.50%
No Recognition
71.50%
83.20%
School of
Progress
54.80%
62.90%
Priority School
Angier Elementary
54.90%
75.50%
53.30%
77.10%
60.30%
76.60%
68.60%
80.90%
60.10%
80.30%
72.10%
83.10%
66.40%
85.20%
58.90%
75.80%
56.90%
77.30%
N/A
66.10%
Green Ridge
Elementary
Sandy Grove
Elementary
Edgewood
Elementary
Tabor City Middle
School
J.R. Ingram
Elementary
SanLee Middle
School
Red Springs High
School
Piney Grove
Elementary
Richmond County
Senior High
School*
I. Ellis Johnson
Elementary
AYP
Not Met
(19 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 19 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 13 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
67.27%
569
28.00%
1989
47.00%
567
75.00%
313
62.29%
1056
61.05%
666
67.50%
610
63.41%
427
Met 21 of 21 Targets
86.76%
449
Met 21 of 21 Targets
60.75%
586
61.25%
538
77.65%
233
60.44%
699
Met 29 of 29 Targets
62.97%
790
Not Met
(10 of 17 Targets Met)
73.37%
678
No recognition
Met 19 of 19 Targets
78.55%
620
35.80%
School of
Distinction
Not Met
(13 of 17 Targets Met)
59.00%
1408
84.70%
School of
Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
92.95%
370
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
Met 17 of 17 Targets
Not Met
(11 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(27 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 23 Targets Met)
* Richmond County Senior High excluded from English analysis due to missing English scores for 2008–09 and 2009–10
school years.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
137
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J14. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, SLA, 2010–11 School Data
School of
Placement
Boone Trail
Elementary
Pinecrest High
School
North Moore High
School
Lilesville
Elementary
E.E. Smith High
School
Alderman Road
Elementary
Cumberland Mills
Elementary
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
49.10%
61.20%
Priority School
89.70%
80.40%
79.70%
80.80%
57.10%
67.00%
75.90%
68.90%
67.30%
84.10%
56.70%
71.80%
Angier Elementary
51.60%
65.50%
Priority School
55.10%
75.90%
School of
Progress
58.00%
73.90%
No Recognition
69.10%
83.10%
Tabor City Middle
59.90%
79.30%
J.R. Ingram
Elementary
72.20%
85.40%
SanLee Middle
70.00%
86.90%
57.80%
72.00%
55.00%
74.60%
6.30%*
30.40%
71.80%
87.80%
Green Ridge
Elementary
Sandy Grove
Elementary
Edgewood
Elementary
Red Springs High
School
Piney Grove
Elementary
Richmond County
Senior High
I. Ellis Johnson
Elementary
School of
Distinction
School of
Distinction
No Recognition
School of
Distinction
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
No Recognition
School of
Distinction
School of
Distinction
AYP
Not Met
(13 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 19 Targets Met)
Not Met
(11 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 19 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
Met 23 of 23 Targets
Not Met
(17 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(26 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 19 Targets Met)
Met 13 of 13 Targets
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
70.92%
545
31.20%
2029
48.91%
546
72.33%
304
62.23%
1055
62.18%
680
69.00%
598
69.61%
423
89.64%
453
61.65%
542
67.16%
526
80.25%
213
63.96%
677
66.17%
810
75.94%
715
83.99%
669
57.82%
1348
95.76%
355
* Richmond County Senior High excluded from English analysis due to missing English scores for 2008–09 and 2009–10
school years.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
138
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J15. RLA Cohort 1 Job Placements, SLA, 2011–12 School Data
School of
Placement
Boone Trail
Elementary
Pinecrest High
School
North Moore High
School
Lilesville
Elementary
E.E. Smith High
School
Alderman Road
Elementary
Cumberland Mills
Elementary
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
49.80%
65.30%
Priority School
89.60%
84.90%
No Recognition
80.80%
79.00%
School of
Progress
57.00%
64.70%
No Recognition
80.10%
75.60%
71.00%
84.20%
64.10%
78.90%
Angier Elementary
41.00%
59.00%
Priority School
52.50%
80.20%
School of
Progress
50.80%
73.60%
No recognition
67.00%
83.20%
Tabor City Middle
63.90%
80.60%
J.R. Ingram
Elementary
67.10%
80.70%
SanLee Middle
75.10%
90.30%
65.10%
80.00%
54.50%
77.40%
No Recognition
N/A
41.30%
School of
Progress
66.30%
85.80%
No Recognition
Green Ridge
Elementary
Sandy Grove
Elementary
Edgewood
Elementary
Red Springs High
School
Piney Grove
Elementary
Richmond County
Senior High*
I. Ellis Johnson
Elementary
School of
Distinction
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
No Recognition
School of
Distinction
School of
Progress
AYP
Not Met
(14 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 23Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 15 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 19 Targets Met)
Met 21 of 21 Targets
Not Met
(22 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 21Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(24 of 25 Targets Met)
Met 29 of 29 Targets
Not Met
(15 of 20 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 24 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 15 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
70.00%
540
33.78%
1982
52.55%
566
76.49%
329
60.11%
1133
59.71%
636
67.28%
646
71.60%
420
89.54%
472
67.08%
535
72.13%
532
77.78%
224
64.53%
706
67.07%
818
83.20%
734
85.19%
683
54.04%
1359
94.60%
341
* Richmond County Senior High excluded from English analysis due to missing English scores for 2008–09 and 2009–10
school years.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
139
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J16. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, NELA, Total Change in Percentages, 2009–2013
Total Change in
Percentages^
Name
School of Hire
LEA
Position
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
D.S. Johnson
Elementary
Southern Nash High
School
Everetts Elementary
Martin
Assistant Principal
Nash-Rocky Mount
Assistant Principal
Nash-Rocky Mount
Assistant Principal
Halifax
Assistant Principal
Franklin
Teacher Grade 3
Amy Pearce
Kendrick Alston
Hugh Scott
Teicher Patterson
Lisa Pennington
Vance
Assistant Principal
Kimberly Allison
Long Mill Elementary
Northern Vance High
School
Wilton Elementary
Granville
Assistant Principal
Jenifer Lewis
Benvenue Elementary
Nash-Rocky Mount
Assistant Principal
Krista Fasioli
Nash-Rocky Mount
Assistant Principal
Nash-Rocky Mount
Assistant Principal
Jennifer Berry
Williford Elementary
Southern Nash High
School
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
Angela Strother
N/A
Edgecombe
Larry Hodgkins
South Creek Middle
South Edgecombe
Middle
J.F. Webb High School
of Health and Life
Sciences
Manning Elementary
Martin
Assistant Principal
AIG Facilitator
(Instruct. AdminCentral office)
Assistant Principal
Teacher Grade 6
SS/Science
Jackson Olsen
Tim Mudd
Darren Gemzik
Elizabeth Payne
Moran
Lauren Greenhill
Edgecombe
Granville
Assistant Principal
RRGSD
Assistant Principal
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
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.
N/A=5 or fewer students in a category and results not shown.
^Data not available at time of report.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
140
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J17. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, PTLA, Total Change in Percentages, 2009–2013
Total Change in
Percentages^
Name
School of Hire
Kristen Gravely
Graham High School
Thomas Kazimir
Graham High School
Dana Roseboro
Newlin Elementary
Ben Cawley
Kevin Conaway
Vernon Hall
Darrell Harris
Noel Keener
Greta Martin
Janiese McKenzie
Rashad Slade
Jonathan Hegedus
Larnitha Hunter
Nicole Kurtz
Susan T Miller
Colin Tribby
Media Specialist
Southeast Guilford Middle
Guilford County
Ferndale Middle
Guilford County
Assistant Principal
Eastern Guilford Middle
Northeast Guilford High
School
Jamestown Middle
Northern Guilford High
School
Guilford County
Assistant Principal
Guilford County
Assistant Principal
Guilford County
7th Grade SS Teacher
Guilford County
Assistant Principal
N/A
Guilford County
Director of Instructional
Technology
Guilford County
Assistant Principal
Guilford County
WinstonSalem/Forsyth
WinstonSalem/Forsyth
WinstonSalem/Forsyth
WinstonSalem/Forsyth
WinstonSalem/Forsyth
WinstonSalem/Forsyth
WinstonSalem/Forsyth
5th Grade Teacher
Walkertown High School
Bolton Elementary
Kernersville Elementary
Ibraham Elementary
West Forsyth High School
Griffith Elementary
The Downtown School
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Assistant Principal
Mission Possible
Specialist
Assistant Principal
Kimberly Ashby
English I/
Reading
Assistant Principal
Guilford County
Toks Wall
Kathy Bryant
Position
N/A
Wiley Accel/Enrichment
Elementary
Rankin Elementary
Chelsea Smith
LEA
AlamanceBurlington
AlamanceBurlington
AlamanceBurlington
Assistant Principal
Assistant Principal
Assistant Principal
Assistant Principal
English III Teacher
Learning Team Facilitator
Assistant Principal
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.
N/A=5 or fewer students in a category and results not shown.
^Data not available at time of report.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
141
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J18. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, SLA, Total Change in Percentages, 2009–2013
Name
School of Hire
LEA
Position
Marci Houseman
Southern Pines Primary
Washington Park
Elementary
Hawk Eye Elementary
Moore
Principal
Scotland
Principal
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
Moore
Assistant Principal
Lee
Assistant Principal
Andrew Keller
Southern Pines Elementary
J. Glenn Edwards
Elementary
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
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
Scotland High School
Scotland
N/A
Robeson
Assistant Principal
Instructional
Specialist
Pam Lewis
Leslie Bailey
Lisa Hain
Matt Moore
Joy Smart
Kristy West
Total Change in
Percentages^
English I/
Algebra I/
Reading
Mathematics
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.
N/A=5 or fewer students in a category and results not shown.
^Data not available at time of report.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
142
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J19. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, NELA, 2009-10 School Data
School of
Placement
Stocks
Elementary
Nashville
Elementary
Nash Central
Middle
Riverside Middle
D.S. Johnson
Elementary
Southern Nash
High School
Everetts
Elementary
Long Mill
Elementary
Northern Vance
High School
Wilton
Elementary
Benvenue
Elementary
Williford
Elementary
Red Oak
Elementary
Swift Creek
Elementary
Tar River
Elementary
South Creek
Middle
South
Edgecombe
Middle
J.F. Webb HS of
Health and Life
Sciences
Manning
Elementary
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
43.50%
70.70%
Priority School
73.80%
88.20%
School of Progress
49.90%
63.70%
Priority School
64.60%
76.60%
School of Progress
37.40%
51.40%
Priority School
75.40%
80.70%
School of Progress
47.40%
52.00%
Priority School
69.80%
89.50%
School of Progress
84.90%
73.00%
78.60%
AYP
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
68.86%
663
49.07%
797
70.00%
644
59.43%
375
81.93%
455
43.68%
1184
81.38%
359
Met 17 of 17 Targets
47.26%
534
School of Progress
Not Met
(10 of 17 Targets Met)
52.44%
1059
92.90%
School of
Distinction
Met 13 of 13 Targets
33.33%
625
61.50%
73.20%
School of Progress
65.37%
829
44.90%
55.10%
Priority School
93.75%
491
N/A
N/A
Met 17 of 17 Targets
41.91%
308
73.80%
91.30%
Met 17 of 17 Targets
43.53%
335
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
64.70%
77.00%
School of Progress
Met 15 of 15 Targets
77.24%
256
54.30%
70.00%
No Recognition
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
51.75%
383
85.10%
80.00%
School of
Distinction
Met 5 of 5 Targets
31.21%
285
69.20%
82.90%
School of Progress
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
44.88%
667
School of
Distinction
School of
Distinction
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 15 Targets Met)
Notes:
Riverside Middle was formerly known as Williamston Middle.
Red Oak Elementary is K-2 only so there is no testing data.
Tar River Elementary opened in 2011-2012.
N/A=5 or fewer students in a category and results not shown.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
143
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J20. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, NELA, 2010-11 School Data
School of
Placement
Stocks
Elementary
Nashville
Elementary
Nash Central
Middle
Riverside Middle
D.S. Johnson
Elementary
Southern Nash
High School
Everetts
Elementary
Long Mill
Elementary
Northern Vance
High School
Wilton
Elementary
Benvenue
Elementary
Williford
Elementary
Red Oak
Elementary
Swift Creek
Elementary
Tar River
Elementary
South Creek
Middle
South
Edgecombe
Middle
J.F. Webb HS of
Health and Life
Sciences
Manning
Elementary
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
45.60%
76.90%
No Recognition
79.30%
90.50%
54.30%
68.20%
68.10%
82.00%
44.40%
54.20%
Priority School
68.80%
78.70%
No Recognition
39.70%
46.20%
Low Performing
73.40%
86.70%
83.30%
73.40%
73.70%
90.10%
64.40%
79.00%
39.70%
50.20%
N/A
N/A
72.00%
88.90%
N/A
School of
Distinction
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
AYP
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Met 21 of 21 Targets
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
75.49%
661
51.11%
750
69.84%
622
58.45%
397
80.20%
471
56.81%
1231
90.73%
353
47.17%
538
61.27%
1006
40.23%
627
68.67%
831
94.09%
447
52.40%
321
46.15%
335
School of
Distinction
School of
Distinction
Not Met
(20 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(21 of 24 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(9 of 15 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
71.50%
84.70%
School of
Progress
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
64.27%
390
55.30%
70.90%
School of
Progress
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
63.68%
366
87.50%
95.00%
Honor School of
Excellence
Met 9 of 9 Targets
31.69%
289
69.40%
82.90%
School of
Progress
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
47.27%
660
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Distinction
School of
Progress
Priority School
Notes:
Riverside Middle was formerly known as Williamston Middle.
Red Oak Elementary is K-2 only so there is no testing data.
Tar River Elementary opened in 2011-2012.
N/A=5 or fewer students in a category and results not shown.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
144
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J21. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, NELA, 2011-12 School Data
School of
Placement
Stocks
Elementary
Nashville
Elementary
Nash Central
Middle
Riverside Middle
D.S. Johnson
Elementary
Southern Nash
High School
Everetts
Elementary
Long Mill
Elementary
Northern Vance
High School
Wilton
Elementary
Benvenue
Elementary
Williford
Elementary
Red Oak
Elementary
Swift Creek
Elementary
Tar River
Elementary
South Creek
Middle
South
Edgecombe
Middle
J.F. Webb HS of
Health and Life
Sciences
Manning
Elementary
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
AYP
52.60%
85.90%
No Recognition
Met 15 of 15 Targets
74.52%
628
81.20%
93.400%
School of
Distinction
Met 21 of 21 Targets
51.67%
747
59.80%
67.80%
No Recognition
70.95%
608
69.70%
78.90%
School of Progress
62.47%
408
43.70%
63.10%
Priority School
89.64%
473
78.00%
73.20%
School of Progress
49.10%
1215
46.30%
48.00%
Low Performing
92.62%
343
72.70%
88.80%
School of
Distinction
Met 17 of 17 Targets
48.89%
546
65.50%
44.70%
School of Progress
Met 20 of 20 Targets
63.87%
934
77.10%
76.70%
School of
Distinction
Met 13 of 13 Targets
30.82%
301
67.90%
76.70%
No Recognition
71.58%
748
37.70%
48.10%
Low Performing
99.38%
427
N/A
N/A
No Recognition
Met 17 of 17 Targets
50.78%
293
71.00%
87.60%
No Recognition
Met 17 of 17 Targets
47.54%
311
75.50%
90.70%
School of
Distinction
Met 13 of 13Targets
36.29%
508
68.40%
77.50%
School of Progress
Not Met
(19 of 21Targets Met)
67.61%
386
56.20%
72.90%
School of Progress
Not Met
(10 of 17 Targets Met)
65.77%
376
91.40%
84.80%
Honor School of
Excellence
Met 9 of 9 Targets
30.53%
289
67.30%
85.40%
School of Progress
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
52.43%
653
Not Met
(13 of 15 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(25 of 26 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets)
Not Met
(7 of 13 Targets Met)
School
Size
Notes:
Riverside Middle was formerly known as Williamston Middle.
Red Oak Elementary is K-2 only so there is no testing data.
N/A=5 or fewer students in a category and results not shown.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
145
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J22. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, PTLA, 2009-10 School Data
School of
Placement
Graham High
School
Newlin
Elementary
Southeast
Guilford Middle
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
71.10%
61.50%
43.00%
64.30%
Priority School
73.20%
83.50%
School of
Progress
Ferndale Middle
51.80%
64.60%
No Recognition
55.10%
64.30%
No Recognition
72.30%
55.80%
School of
Progress
74.00%
85.50%
91.50%
Eastern Guilford
Middle
Northeast
Guilford High
School
Jamestown
Middle
Northern
Guilford High
School
Wiley
Accel/Enrichment
Elementary
Rankin
Elementary
Walkertown High
School
Bolton
Elementary
Kernersville
Elementary
Ibraham
Elementary
West Forsyth
High School
Griffith
Elementary
The Downtown
School
Designation
School of
Progress
AMO
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(26 of 33 Targets Met)
Not Met
(28 of 37 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
56.80%
773
87.40%
601
31.49%
1024
71.49%
757
61.02%
913
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
47.99%
1122
School of
Progress
Met 37 of 37 Targets
47.02%
1032
50.00%
School of
Distinction
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
17.06%
1158
25.70%
61.00%
Priority School
Not Met
(10 of 13 Targets Met)
98.88%
244
50.80%
75.90%
Priority School
Not Met
(24 of 25 Targets Met)
88.32%
617
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
60.30%
77.50%
Met 23 of 23 Targets
86.96%
628
62.40%
81.80%
Met 29 of 29 Targets
59.88%
885
49.10%
78.30%
Met 17 of 17 Targets
89.38%
433
91.50%
81.50%
Met 20 of 20 Targets
15.61%
1950
63.40%
75.90%
Not Met
(23 of 24 Targets Met)
78.07%
596
92.10%
95.00%
Met 13 of 13 Targets
6.31%
261
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
School of
Progress
Honor School of
Excellence
School of
Progress
Honor School of
Excellence
Notes:
Walkertown High School opened in 2011-2012.
N/A=5 or fewer students in a category and results not shown.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
146
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J23. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, PTLA, 2010-11 School Data
School of
Placement
Graham High
School
Newlin
Elementary
Southeast
Guilford Middle
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
76.40%
63.10%
School of Progress
42.00%
64.20%
Priority School
75.10%
84.50%
School of Progress
Ferndale Middle
54.70%
69.30%
School of Progress
56.40%
69.90%
School of Progress
71.20%
51.90%
No Recognition
75.10%
87.20%
95.00%
Eastern Guilford
Middle
Northeast
Guilford High
School
Jamestown
Middle
Northern
Guilford High
School
Wiley
Accel/Enrichment
Elementary
Rankin
Elementary
Walkertown High
School
Bolton
Elementary
Kernersville
Elementary
Ibraham
Elementary
West Forsyth
High School
Griffith
Elementary
The Downtown
School
AYP
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(25 of 33 Targets Met)
Not Met
(27 of 33 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
61.09%
753
91.00%
619
35.90%
1018
73.82%
833
65.02%
943
Not Met
(13 of 17 Targets Met)
52.51%
1097
School of
Distinction
Not Met
(35 of 37 Targets Met)
51.02%
1083
77.90%
School of
Distinction
Met 17 of 17 Targets
16.60%
1245
38.30%
68.20%
Priority School
Met 13 of 13 Targets
97.98%
238
50.70%
71.40%
Priority School
Not Met
(18 of 29 Targets Met)
91.10%
668
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
61.70%
79.50%
School of Progress
86.26%
590
61.70%
83.90%
School of Progress
62.85%
871
51.70%
70.70%
School of Progress
92.97%
463
92.70%
89.70%
Honor School of
Excellence
Met 21 of 21 Targets
18.17%
1912
57.10%
73.40%
No Recognition
Not Met
(13 of 25 Targets Met)
84.54%
547
92.00%
94.30%
Honor School of
Excellence
Met 13 of 13 Targets
8.52%
309
Not Met
(17 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(10 of 17 Targets Met)
Notes:
Walkertown High School opened in 2011-2012.
N/A=5 or fewer students in a category and results not shown.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
147
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J24. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, PTLA, 2011-12 School Data
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School of
Placement
Graham High
School
Newlin
Elementary
Southeast
Guilford Middle
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
AYP
71.50%
47.40%
School of Progress
Met 23 of 23 Targets
54.91%
785
42.40%
62.40%
Priority School
Not Met
(14 of 21 Targets Met)
91.43%
604
74.60%
84.70%
School of
Distinction
Met 25 of 25 Targets
37.85%
1033
Ferndale Middle
54.10%
68.60%
No Recognition
74.67%
867
56.40%
71.500%
School of Progress
66.77%
983
70.30%
63.70%
No Recognition
Not Met
(21 of 23 Targets Met)
52.98%
1060
75.90%
89.40%
School of
Distinction
Met 37 of 37 Targets
51.75%
1135
94.10%
90.60%
Honor School of
Excellence
Met 19 of 19 Targets
16.13%
1294
62.90%
86.60%
School of Progress
Met 13 of 13 Targets
96.62%
238
48.20%
71.60%
Priority School
92.12%
715
82.20%
61.00%
No Recognition
57.79%
222
56.40%
76.10%
School of Progress
87.33%
573
70.00%
85.00%
School of Progress
Met 29 of 29 Targets
67.46%
877
50.60%
75.70%
No Recognition
Not Met
(17 of 21 Targets Met)
92.95%
454
93.20%
82.60%
Honor School of
Excellence
Met 25 of 25 Targets
19.78%
1953
59.20%
78.30%
No Recognition
Not Met
(22 of 25 Targets Met)
85.04%
551
86.70%
95.00%
Honor School of
Excellence
Met 13 of 13 Targets
9.74%
346
Eastern Guilford
Middle
Northeast
Guilford High
School
Jamestown
Middle
Northern
Guilford High
School
Wiley
Accel/Enrichment
Elementary
Rankin
Elementary
Walkertown High
School
Bolton
Elementary
Kernersville
Elementary
Ibraham
Elementary
West Forsyth
High School
Griffith
Elementary
The Downtown
School
Not Met
(20 of 33 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 33 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(7 of 10 Targets Met)
Not Met
(18 of 21 Targets Met)
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
School
Size
148
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J25. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, SLA, 2009-10 School Data
School of
Placement
Southern Pines
Primary
Washington Park
Elementary
Hawk Eye
Elementary
Purnell Swett
High School
L.J. Bell
Elementary
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
N/A
N/A
School of Progress
77.00%
90.30%
School of
Distinction
37.40%
61.90%
Priority School
59.80%
58.20%
School of Progress
69.00%
84.50%
School of Progress
Hamlet Middle
55.00%
70.10%
School of Progress
East Lee Middle
67.70%
80.40%
School of Progress
60.10%
80.30%
School of Progress
50.20%
73.10%
Priority School
66.40%
85.20%
School of Progress
70.00%
83.50%
School of Progress
69.90%
87.90%
School of Progress
76.60%
66.80%
School of Progress
72.10%
83.10%
School of Progress
83.90%
69.10%
School of
Distinction
65.50%
75.90%
School of Progress
55.10%
74.10%
School of Progress
65.60%
83.10%
56.50%
N/A
Tabor City
Middle
Elizabethtown
Middle
SanLee Middle
Southern Pines
Elementary
J. Glenn Edwards
Elementary
Lee County High
School
J.R. Ingram
Elementary
Union Pines High
School
Southern Middle
Douglas Byrd
Middle
Broadway
Elementary
Boone Trail
Elementary
Scotland High
School
AYP
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
57.00%
442
61.60%
349
86.46%
411
63.79%
1619
60.93%
518
71.30%
586
57.97%
630
77.65%
233
76.75%
481
62.97%
790
50.00%
421
Met 25 of 25 Targets
74.96%
682
Met 21 of 21 Targets
40.71%
1348
60.44%
699
31.00%
1174
53.00%
712
Met 25 of 25 Targets
74.15%
643
School of Progress
Met 21 of 21 Targets
69.18%
582
70.50%
No Recognition
Not Met
(19 of 23 Targets Met)
67.27%
569
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Met 17 of 17 Targets
Not Met
(8 of 13 Targets Met)
Not Met
(8 of 17 Targets Met)
Met 17 of 17 Targets
Not Met
(23 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(27 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 25 Targets Met)
Met 29 of 29 Targets
Not Met
(20 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 23 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 15 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 25 Targets Met)
Notes:
Southern Pines Primary is K-2 only so there is no testing data.
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
149
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J26. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, SLA, 2010-11 School Data
School of
Placement
Southern Pines
Primary
Washington Park
Elementary
Hawk Eye
Elementary
Purnell Swett
High School
L.J. Bell
Elementary
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
N/A
N/A
No Recognition
72.30%
91.30%
School of
Distinction
41.30%
68.80%
Priority School
60.30%
66.80%
School of Progress
75.00%
85.30%
School of
Distinction
Hamlet Middle
58.40%
71.90%
School of Progress
East Lee Middle
67.40%
79.10%
School of Progress
59.90%
79.30%
School of Progress
51.50%
69.20%
School of Progress
70.00%
86.90%
School of Progress
67.50%
81.600%
No Recognition
67.50%
86.40%
School of Progress
75.80%
65.60%
School of Progress
72.20%
85.40%
School of Progress
88.50%
77.800%
School of
Distinction
68.20%
79.50%
School of Progress
47.30%
66.80%
Priority School
61.30%
81.00%
School of Progress
49.10%
61.20%
Priority School
N/A
N/A
N/A
Tabor City
Middle
Elizabethtown
Middle
SanLee Middle
Southern Pines
Elementary
J. Glenn Edwards
Elementary
Lee County High
School
J.R. Ingram
Elementary
Union Pines
High School
Southern Middle
Douglas Byrd
Middle
Broadway
Elementary
Boone Trail
Elementary
Scotland High
School
AYP
Not Met
(15 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 19 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(16 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(26 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(24 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(22 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(12 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(23 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 23 Targets Met)
N/A
Percentage
of LowIncome
Students
School
Size
56.05%
409
61.30%
319
86.68%
400
69.02%
1615
60.97%
521
70.92%
576
59.62%
649
80.25%
213
77.46%
419
66.17%
810
53.18%
421
76.90%
686
43.29%
1341
63.96%
677
35.05%
1181
56.22%
713
78.19%
690
73.01%
593
70.92%
545
N/A
N/A
Notes:
Southern Pines Primary is K-2 only so there is no testing data.
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.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
150
North Carolina Leadership Academies: Final 2013 Report
March 2014
Table J27. RLA Cohort 2 Job Placements, SLA, 2011-12 School Data
School of
Placement
Southern Pines
Primary
Washington Park
Elementary
Hawk Eye
Elementary
Purnell Swett
High School
L.J. Bell
Elementary
English I/
Reading
Algebra I/
Mathematics
Designation
N/A
N/A
School of Progress
65.70%
87.40%
School of Progress
47.30%
66.30%
Priority School
70.50%
64.10%
School of Progress
80.60%
83.80%
School of
Distinction
Hamlet Middle
60.40%
76.00%
School of Progress
East Lee Middle
61.50%
75.40%
No Recognition
63.90%
80.60%
School of Progress
50.70%
63.00%
Priority School
75.10%
90.30%
School of
Distinction
71.80%
82.40%
64.40%
Tabor City
Middle
Elizabethtown
Middle
SanLee Middle
Southern Pines
Elementary
J. Glenn
Edwards
Elementary
Lee County High
School
J.R. Ingram
Elementary
Union Pines
High School
Southern Middle
Douglas Byrd
Middle
Broadway
Elementary
Boone Trail
Elementary
Scotland High
School
AMO (formerly AYP)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Percentage of
Low-Income
Students
School
Size
54.88%
447
64.29%
337
91.63%
356
70.49%
1647
64.42%
536
71.91%
569
62.40%
682
77.78%
224
79.86%
407
Met 29 of 29 Targets
67.07%
818
School of Progress
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
57.89%
399
80.50%
No Recognition
Not Met
(22 of 25 Targets Met)
79.30%
708
64.20%
57.40%
School of Progress
50.15%
1361
67.10%
80.70%
No Recognition
64.53%
706
91.60%
89.50%
No Recognition
35.58%
1150
63.00%
76.90%
School of Progress
58.19%
751
52.90%
74.00%
School of Progress
80.23%
730
64.10%
82.20%
School of Progress
78.75%
558
49.80%
65.30%
Priority School
70.00%
540
74.00%
5.90%
No Recognition
53.10%
1555
Met 17 of 17 Targets
Not Met
(14 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(13 of 16 Targets Met)
Met 17 of 17 Targets
Not Met
(15 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(17 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 17 Targets Met)
Not Met
(15 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(21 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(24 of 25 Targets Met)
Met 16 of 16 Targets
Not Met
(17 of 25 Targets Met)
Not Met
(24 of 29 Targets Met)
Not Met
(19 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(14 of 21 Targets Met)
Not Met
(20 of 30 Targets Met)
Note: Southern Pines Primary is K-2 only so there is no testing data.
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina
151
Contact Information:
Please direct all inquiries to Kathleen M. Brown
[email protected]
© 2014 Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina