Recent US curriculum policies reflect a shift toward centralization, a controversial move in a nation with an educational tradition as a thin state. This movement follows a decade of high-stakes externalized evaluation policies and related accountability labels. Amidst these trends, US student demographics are increasingly pluralistic. School leaders, then, must mediate among curriculum and evaluation requirements and the needs of culturally diverse students. This paper highlights one ongoing program featuring a university-community partnership whereby research evidence is used to inform school/leadership development in 75 culturally diverse underperforming schools along the US-Mexico border. Grounded in a use of theory for utility, researchers and participants together reflect upon their development. Theory and empirical research findings inform the content and delivery system. Empirical leadership and effective school studies have focused on practices that contribute to school development and ultimately student learning (e.g., Bennett, et al., 2013; Edmonds, 1979; Hallinger & Murphy, 1986, Jacobson, et al.. 2005). Despite the emphasis on instructional leadership in these studies, curriculum has received little attention and remains undertheorized (Uljens & Ylimaki, 2017; Ylimaki, 2011). Thus, we have incorporated understandings from curriculum theorizing (Pinar, 1995), culturally relevant teaching (Gonzalez, Moll & Amanti, 2006), and education theory (Benner, 2005; Uljens, 2002; Uljens & Ylimaki, 2017) as well as evaluation results of the project (e.g., Bennett, et al., 2013). This project focused on two interrelated processed, 1) team interaction and reflection on content/pedagogy, and 2) a research-based delivery system featuring direct instruction, regional network meetings, and in-school coaching. Content included professional learning, school culture, curriculum mediation, data literacy, parent/community involvement, recognition, and culturally relevant practices. Data collection is ongoing. Participants completed a survey (Bennett, et al., 2013) as both a pre- and post- assessment. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to determine changes in capacity building during the intervention period. Additionally, state assessment data were used to analyze any changes in student learning, graduation rate, etc. The project was tested through two phases. In Test Group 1, over 50% of schools that participated in all phases of the project improved their school accountability ratings (letter grades) by one or two letters. Over 80% of schools in Test Group 2 improved by one grade. Qualitative results were congruent with the quantitative findings, indicating that were in transition and at various stages of development. Results, thus, are promising. Future plans feature refinement and expansion to additional culturally diverse schools.

Benner, D. (2005). Allgemeine pädagogik. East China Normal University Press. Bennett, J., Ylimaki, R., Dugan, T., & Brunderman, L (2013). Developing the potential for sustainable Improvement in underperforming schools: Capacity building in the socio-cultural dimension. Journal of Educational Change, 15(4), 377-409. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2006). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (1986). The social context of effective schools. American journal of education, 94(3), 328-355. Jacobson, S., Johnson, L., Ylimaki, R., & Giles, C. (2005). Successful leadership in challenging US schools: enabling principles, enabling schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 607-618. Pinar, W. F., & Pinar, W. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses (Vol. 17). Peter Lang. Uljens, M. (2002). The Idea of a Universal Theory of Education—an Impossible but Necessary Project?. Journal of philosophy of education, 36(3), 353-375. Ylimaki, R. M., Brunderman, L., Bennett, J. V., & Dugan, T. (2014). Developing Arizona turnaround leaders to build high-capacity schools in the midst of accountability pressures and changing demographics. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13(1), 28-60.