School turnaround and related policy in the United States have emphasized school improvement planning as a key mechanism for the leaders of underperforming schools to radically improve their organizations and increase student performance (Mintrop et al., 2001). Principals have developed school improvement plans (SIPs), however, mostly to comply with federal and local policy (Author, 2022), resulting in satisficing behaviors (Simon, 1957) in which they do enough to meet reporting expectations but not to engage in authentic efforts to change (Author, 2019). The University Leadership Development Program (ULDP) is an in-service program that partners with school districts to provide both district-level leaders and school principals of underperforming schools with joint professional learning services spanning approximately 2.5 years. Despite evidence of impact on student achievement (Herman et al., 2019; Player & Katz, 2016), the mechanisms of ULDP remain understudied. Combining multiple strands of research on ULDP, I draw on more than 300 SIPs, 50 interviews, and 100 hours of observations of district leaders and school principals to report on how successfully partnering district and school leaders effectively leverage SIPs together to build cohesion across levels; strategically identify, garner, and leverage resources and supports for underperforming schools; and incorporate leader coaching and guidance through a shared focus on achieving SIP goals. I conclude that for SIPs to be a lever to improve underperforming schools, district leaders and school principals must intentionally and collaboratively develop SIPs and maintain focused, ongoing coaching relationships centred on completing them and making necessary, ongoing adjustments to them.

Author. (2019). Author. (2022). Herman R., Gates, S. M., Arifkhanova, A., et al. (2019). School leadership interventions under the every student succeeds act: Evidence review. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1550-3.html Mintrop, H., MacLellan, A. M., & Quintero, M. F. (2001). School improvement plans in schools on probation: a comparative content analysis across three accountability systems. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 197-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969299 Player, D., & Katz, V. (2016). Assessing school turnaround: Evidence from Ohio. The Elementary School Journal, 116(4), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1086/686467 Simon, H.A. (1957), Models of man, Wiley.