In the U.S. and many other countries across the globe, curriculum and evaluation policy trends lean 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, especially following the pandemic, teacher shortages became more prevalent and educators experienced increased effects from digitalization that forced rapid shifts to virtual education spaces, revealed disparate access to technology and the internet, and renewed dialogue about education values and evidence in school development amidst “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”.

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, externalized evaluation policies, and increasing scrutiny of public schools. This paper presents findings from a school development project (Arizona Initiative for Leadership Development and Research - AZiLDR) that connects research with practice to build leadership capacity for mediating the tensions and supporting democratic values and outcomes for all students. The project grew from the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) research.

Theoretical Framing

The framing of the ISSPP draws on ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) that explains multiple layers of influence on child development and complexity theory (e.g., Morrison, 2010) that explains relations between the leadership navigation processes and the dynamics or changes in systems. Drawing on Bronfenbrenner (1979) and complexity theory (Morrison, 2010), the ISSPP considers the layers of systems influence on the school and the principal’s leadership as well as principal’s influence on systems and changes within schools, communities and broader influences (e.g., state and tribal policy). In other words, the ISSPP project considers the complex, two-directional interaction and influence between the principal and the contemporary complex or “zone of uncertainty” environment for children’s education in schools.

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 AZiLDR, we recognize the importance of cultural diversity and values of democratic education. 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.

Description of AZiLDR. 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) 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 face-to-face institutes as well as 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 also facilitated school visits for coaching and feedback. 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? Mixed Methods. Methodology featured mixed methods, including analysis of surveys, student outcomes on state tests and school letter grades, and semi-structured interviews as well as documents from school improvement work. 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 state department data on school performance on state tests, and qualitative interviews. 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. Semi-structured qualitative interviews (35-40 minutes) and site observations were conducted. Interview questions featured leadership practices from ISSPP and related studies (Leithwood, Harris, & Strauss, 2010). The AZiLDR faculty (authors) engaged others in data collection (interviews) as we were directly involved in the process. We analyzed the AZ Letter grades and information with open access from the Arizona State Department of Education. At the same time, we worked with leadership teams to identify problems of practice for school development work and analyzed data with the leadership teams for this purpose.

Project findings are promising in terms of improved academic outcomes and improved leadership capacity for democratic and culturally responsive education. 57 percent of schools showed significant improvement of student outcomes in the initial cohort, 87 percent 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. 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 administrator of a small high school talked about the importance of school culture, stating, “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 commented 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 for research and leadership development amidst the zone of uncertainty. We argue that educational leaders need to be able to mediate and navigate tensions as they educate all students for an unknown future. Future plans include expanding participating schools in Arizona and other states and engaging in a cross-national dialogue with school development leaders in other national contexts. We envision a multi-level, contextually based school development process featuring cross-national dialogue to support leadership amidst increasing diversity, evaluation policy pressures, and fluid unforeseen situations.

Authors (2021). Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard university press. Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2015). Projections of the Size and Composition of the US Population: 2014 to 2060. Population Estimates and Projections. Current Population Reports. P25-1143. US Census Bureau. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in education. New York, NY: The Free Press. Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed (1897). School Journal, 54(3), 77–80. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading school turnaround: How successful leaders transform low-performing schools. John Wiley & Sons. Morrison, K. (2010). Complexity theory, school leadership and management: Questions for theory and practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(3), 374-393. U.S. Census Bureau (2020). https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade/2020/2020-census-main.html.