Topic

In the U.S. and many other countries across the globe, we observe curriculum and evaluation policy trends toward commonality and evidence-based school reforms that suggest the need for “what works” tested with a particular set of research methods (i.e., randomized controlled trials). Yet many schools serve culturally diverse students due to global population migrations and internal demographic shifts. Additionally, educators across the globe have experienced increased effects from digitalization in the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic that forced rapid shifts to virtual education spaces, revealed disparate access to technology and the internet, and renewed dialogue about education values as well as evidence in school development amidst what we term “a zone of uncertainty” (Authors, 2021). Educational leaders, including school principals and teachers, must navigate and mediate tensions between commonality and diversity in the “zone of uncertainty”.

In 2020, the U.S. demographics are increasingly racially/ethnically diverse, including 60.1% Hispanic, 18.5% Black, 12.2% Asian, 5.6%., 2.8% Mixed Race, and 0.7% Native American (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Currently, White people constitute the majority of the U.S. population (62%); however, the percentage is expected to fall below 50% by 2050 with Hispanic populations to experience the largest increase at 23% (Colby & Ortman, 2015). Since the 1960s, there has been a significant increase in the number and diversity of immigrants coming to the U.S. In recent years, we also observe global changes in educational policies and governance systems with increased curriculum centralization, the advent of externalized evaluation policies and the increasing scrutiny of educational organizations at all levels, particularly public schools. The most popular reason for using evidence as a basis for policymaking is that evidence provides an indicator of quality in terms of how much someone has learned or how much impact a certain educational technique has on students (Wiseman, 2010). This paper presents an historical and contemporary examination of educational tensions and dilemmas in the United States as well as findings from a school development project (Arizona Initiative for Leadership Development and Research or AZiLDR) aimed at building leadership capacity to mediate these tensions and support democratic values and outcomes for all students. 

Research Questions

Research questions included:

1. How do principals build teacher leadership teams to balance contemporary tensions and lead school development initiatives in their schools?
2. What are the outcomes of school development initiatives on academic test results and students’ growth as democratic citizens? 

Theoretical Framework: Leadership for Democratic Education and Cultural Diversity 

Dewey (1916, 1897) argued that the aim of education in democratic countries of the world should be the cultivation of democratic values in the minds of the children and individuals - faith in a democratic way of living, respect for the dignity of other persons, freedom, equality of opportunity, justice, faith in tolerance, faith in change, and peaceful methods and faith in cooperative living and above all fellow-feelingness. Education takes place through participation of the individual in social activities and relationships with his fellow human beings. Dewey holds that education is necessary for healthy living in the society. It gives the child social consciousness. The teachers and principal must recognize the background of the child as well as the social demands. 

In our school development project (AZiLDR), we recognize the importance of cultural diversity and values of democratic education. Here school members recognize conscious and unconscious biases that they bring to conversations, for example, around achievement gaps and racial inequities.  In our model, therefore, we see education with (culturally responsive) pedagogical interactions and democratic interactions around evidence of outcomes as interrelated. Leadership of education so defined inspired our school development project. 

Methodology Methodology featured mixed methods, including analysis of surveys, student outcomes on state tests and school letter grades, and semi-structured interviews. Over a five-year span, seventy-one Arizona schools with high percentages of student diversity and challenges with student outcomes participated in the project. Data sources included a survey, state department data on school performance on state tests, and qualitative interviews. Participants took a survey (Bennett, 2012) modified by the authors as a pre-assessment prior to the beginning of the first training, and a post-assessment at the end of the project. Using this 181-item survey, the researchers examined principals’ and teachers’ leadership knowledge and practices essential for school development, including principal-specific knowledge, skills, and practices as well as capacity for progression through school development. Further, we used the Arizona letter grades to indicate changes in outcomes for schools with differing levels of participation (full participation, partial participation, and no participation). State assessments and data were used to analyze movement of lowest quartile students, within-school gaps, and graduation rate changes, all of which impacted the state letter grade designation. Quantitative results also informed semi-structured qualitative interviews (35-40 minutes) and observation settings in schools. Interview questions featured leadership practices in relation to the three stages of school development (Leithwood, Harris, & Strauss, 2010), including levels of capacity building, collaboration, community involvement, assessment literacy, curriculum, as well as democratic education values and aims. Interviews were designed to examine participants’ (principals and teachers) understandings of turnaround stages, conceptions of leadership, and capacities. Description of AZiLDR Project. The Arizona school development project (AZiLDR) was designed to provide district and school leaders with a sustained (18-36 months) process focused on democratic and culturally responsive education and pedagogical work. The project design focused on three interrelated processes: 1) interpersonal, democratic (team member) interaction and reflection, 2) time for planning for diffusion of activities specific to the needs of each school site and 3) a research-based delivery system that models inquiry and deliberative approaches to problems of practice. Participants featured school teams, including the principal, assistant principal, coach, teacher leaders and a district representative. Teams attended ten days of face-to-face institutes as well as bi-monthly regional network meetings. Content of the institutes and regional meetings featured education and pedagogy, evidence-based decision-making, leadership team capacity and collaboration. AZiLDR faculty provided summer institutes, virtual regional meetings, and school visits for coaching and feedback.

Conclusions and Findings Project findings are promising in terms of improved academic outcomes and improved leadership capacity for democratic and culturally responsive education. In the paper, we share that 57 percent of schools showed significant improvement of student outcomes in the initial cohort, 87 percent of schools in the second cohort, and 73 percent in the third cohort. Further, qualitative findings indicated progress in leadership capacity for deliberative approaches to problems of practice and navigation of multiple influences and challenges in school development. Specifically, the paper presents findings in four main themes: 1) the importance of school culture to relationships, mediating tensions, navigating uncertainties, and democratic processes; 2) team leadership capacity for school development; 3) using data as a source of reflection and deliberative problem-solving; and 4) strengths-based approaches that support cultural diversity. As examples, one principal/superintendent of a small high school talked at length about the importance of school culture when she stated, “We really needed to work on our school culture, building trust among our team and among the faculty and then we really could see progress in our school development process.” Another principal made a representative comment about team leadership capacity, stating, “As a school team we developed focus and drive, improved teamwork, communication, and implemented strategies that delivered real improvement and growth which was seen and felt throughout our school.” The paper concludes with a discussion about implications research and leadership development amidst the zone of uncertainty. As student populations become increasingly diverse due to global population migrations and policies for curriculum and evaluation become increasingly common in addition to other rapid changes adding to uncertainty (e.g., pandemics, war), we argue that educational leaders need to be able to mediate and navigate tensions as they educate all students for an unknown future.

Authors (2021). Bennett, J. V. (2012). “Democratic” collaboration for school turnaround in Southern Arizona. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(5), 442-451. Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2015). Projections of the size and composition of the US population: 2014 to 2060, Current Population Reports, P25-1143, US Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in education. New York, NY: The Free Press. Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. In Curriculum Studies Reader Ed. 2. London, UK.: Routledge. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading school turnaround: How successful leaders transform low-performing schools. John Wiley & Sons. U.S. Census Bureau (2020). https://www.census.gov. Wiseman, A. W. (2010). The uses of evidence for educational policymaking: Global contexts and international trends. Review of research in education, 34(1), 1-24. 127/400 words