Purpose and Background

The state of Arizona (USA) has a large Latino population, first, because it was a Mexican territory acquired through annexation, and second, because it is a border U.S.-Mexico state with a high percentage of recent immigrants who seek better opportunities, including migrants who seek work in U.S. farms as one example. In recent years, the state has also experienced increasing diversity from refugees and global population migrations. The U.S. Census Bureau notes that the increasing number of international migrants beyond Mexico and Latin America will make the country a pluralistic majority minority nation state by 2050 (Hussar et al., 2020). Further, Arizona schools serve Native American children who have experienced historical trauma from assimilation. Schools serving high numbers of Native students are governed in a variety of ways, including local district policies, tribal councils, the Arizona Department of Education, and some federally governed through the Bureau of Indian Education. Today’s Arizona principals lead schools amidst rapid changes in their communities, state, nation, state and globally.

While there is a large body of empirical research on principal leadership (e.g, Day, 2005; Edmonds, 1979; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Johnson, 2007; Leithwood & Riehl, 2005), few studies have been conducted along the U.S.-Mexico border and in Native American communities (Author, 2024) amidst rapid changes and complexities. The purpose of this paper is twofold: 1) to present research findings from case studies of successful Arizona principals from the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) conducted near the U.S.-Mexico border and on a Navajo reservation and 2) to present our projects for leadership preparation and development that connect theory, research, and practice in an Arizona context with multiple layers of influence and complexities.

Our research draws upon an interdisciplinary approach, including ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) with complexity theory (Morrison, 2011) and educational philosophy and leadership theory (Dewey, 1916; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007) as well as empirical understandings of leadership from the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) and related leadership studies (e.g., Leithwood & Riehl, 2005; Johnson, 2014). Since its inception in 2002, ISSPP researchers have produced over 200 case studies of successful principals in schools over 24 countries. As the project reached theoretical saturation in 2020, the context for schools changed rapidly across the participating countries. ISSPP researchers recognized the need to further consider principal leadership amidst the rapidly changing context of schools, districts/municipalities, states, and countries across the globe. The cases reported in this paper are part of the revised ISSPP with a new framing and mixed methods protocols.

The interdisciplinary framing, ISSPP research (including the Arizona cases), and related  research on culturally responsive leadership (e.g., Johnson, 2014; Khalifa, et al., 2016) has informed our development of leadership preparation and projects across Arizona. While earlier historical times also witnessed educational concerns about schools and education (Dewey, 1916), this particular time features multiple layers of influence and complexities with rapid changes on schools. Thus, we developed the Arizona Initiative for Leadership Development and Research (AZiLDR) that has served over 100 schools that are not facing turnaround status but need to work on school improvement throughout the state, a mentoring program for new principals, and a leadership preparation program for aspiring leaders at the intersection of theory, research, and practice. The leadership preparation varies by context with a cohort designed for Southern Arizona near the U.S. Mexico border, a cohort designed for more urban schools, another for rural schools, and one for Native American school leaders. In the paper, we share examples from these models.

Methods For purposes of this paper, the ISSPP research questions were: 1) In what ways, do diverse socioeconomic, cultural, political, and professional contexts at different levels of the education system in which schools operate influence the ways in which successful principals work?; 2) What similarities and differences can be identified in the values, beliefs, and behaviors of successful school principals across different schools in the same state?; and 3) In what ways, do school principals contribute to the ‘success’ of their schools? Using a mixed methods comparative methodology design, we drew upon different data sources and design elements to gain multiple perspectives (Creswell & Tashakkori, 2007; Patton, 2002). Data sources included semi-structured qualitative interviews, focus groups with parents and students, and a teacher survey to provide a deeper understanding of school success and the principal’s leadership contribution to that success within specific contexts. Thus, researchers integrated qualitative interview and quantitative survey data to support triangulation and trustworthiness or validity (Denzin, 1978). We also studied the application projects in school development with mixed methods, including analysis of surveys, student outcomes on state tests and school letter grades, and semi-structured interviews. Data sources included a survey, state department data on school performance on state tests, and qualitative interviews. At the beginning of the project, 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 Department of Education website to determine letter grades 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. Survey results also informed semi-structured qualitative interviews (35-40 minutes) and observation settings in schools.

Conclusions Across both cases, we consider the principals' success ecologically as they interact with and adapt to rapid context changes from micro, macro, and chromo levels. Over the past five years, El Median Elementary became increasingly diverse. Two years prior to data collection, El Median earned an A+ rating from the Arizona Education Foundation (ret. 2024). The principal, Leah Johnson, is a White woman fluent in Spanish, which served her well. Mesa Elementary School serves 300 Navajo students as part of a public school district located on a Navajo reservation community with challenges of teacher retention and parent engagement. The principal, Robert Begay, is a Navajo male who grew up in the community, is fluent in Navajo, and has a strong commitment to the community and Navajo values. Under this principal, Mesa moved from a D-rated school to a B-rated school approaching an A-rating on the Arizona Department of Education Letter Grades. While the principals’ approaches differed due to context, both principals shared a commitment to inclusive approaches to language and culture. In both schools, the principals cultivated school cultures that offered culturally relevant activities, hope and quality teaching for all students. Additional practices featured increased parent and community, morning meetings, and after-school opportunities that strengthened engagement and academic performance. Regarding school development, 87 percent of those schools who participated in all activities gained one or two letter grades and made qualitative improvements in leadership capacity, professional development, classroom instruction, and parent involvement. The paper concludes with implications for further research, leadership development, and leadership preparation. These Arizona cases and subsequent studies can contribute to a contextualized conception of principal success and culturally responsive leadership amidst multiple layers of influence on increasingly diverse schools and communities as well as examples of leadership preparation and development in the U.S. and beyond.

References Author (2024). Author (2012). Arizona Educational Foundation (ret. 2024). https://www.azedfoundation.org/ Bennett, J. V. (2012). “Democratic” collaboration for school turnaround in Southern Arizona. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(5), 442-451. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Creswell, J. W., & Tashakkori, A. (2007). Journal of Mixed Methods. Sage, 1(4), 303-308. Day, C. (2005). Principals who sustain success: Making a difference in schools in challenging circumstances. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(4), 273-290. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act. New York: Routledge. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in education. New York, NY: The Free Press. Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational leadership, 37(1), 15-24. Gurr, D., & Drysdale, L. (2018). Leading high needs schools: Findings from the international school leadership development network. International Studies in Educational Administration, 46(1), 147-156. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The elementary school journal, 86(2), 217-247. Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., Cui, J., ... & Dilig, R. (2020). The Condition of Education 2020. NCES 2020-144. National Center for Education Statistics. Johnson, L. (2014). Culturally responsive leadership for community empowerment. Multicultural Education Review, 6(2), 145-170. Johnson, L. (2007). Rethinking successful school leadership in challenging US schools: Culturally responsive practices in school-community relationships. International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 35(3). Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of educational research, 86(4), 1272-1311. Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005). What do we already know about educational leadership. A new agenda for research in educational leadership, 12. Morrison, K. (2011). Leadership for self-organisation: Complexity theory and communicative action. International Journal of Complexity in Leadership and Management, 1(2), 145-163. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative social work, 1(3), 261-283. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The leadership quarterly, 18(4), 298-318.