Developing Arizona Turnaround Leaders to Build High-Capacity Schools in the Midst of Accountability Pressures and Changing Demographics

Abstract

Today’s accountability policies and changing demographics have created conditions in which leaders must rapidly build school capacity and improve outcomes in culturally diverse schools. This article presents findings from a mixed-methods evaluation of an Arizona Turnaround Leadership Development Project. The project drew on studies of turnaround leadership, capacity, and turnaround leadership development projects. Leadership teams attended institutes and regional coaching sessions focused on assessment literacy, curriculum, culturally responsive practices, organizational redesign, and community relationships. Results indicated gains in turnaround leadership knowledge and the importance of district support, full participation, and relationships with culturally diverse community members.

Notes

1. 1. According to the No Child Left Behind Act (2002), schools that do not make adequate yearly progress on state assessments over a series of years are subject to reconstitution or turnaround status. When schools move from focus or priority status to turnaround status, district officials must hire a new principal and replace at least 50% of the teachers. In 2011, 252 schools were identified as Tier III (persistently underperforming).

2. 2. Arizona’s population with Hispanic or Latino origin is 30.8%, and 4.9% of Arizona’s population is American Indian, four times the national parameter of 1.0%.

3. 3. Additional principal survey items contained Likert-scale responses.

4. 4. A Pearson’s chi-squared test is the more statistically valid test than an independent samples t test to compare means because Likert-scale items assume a discrete distribution rather than a normal distribution (Field, 2009). Likert-scale response items on five categories (low to high) can only take on certain values (1 through 5) on a scale. Independent samples t-tests compare means that have continuous scales. The expected frequencies in all categories of Likert-scale items failed to meet minimum requirements. Expected frequencies should always be greater than 5 (Field, 2009).

5. 5. “A” schools demonstrate an excellent level of performance. For example, “A” schools earn points equal to a school that has 90% of students passing AIMS and achieves greater academic growth with its population of students than most schools. “B” schools demonstrate an above average level of performance. For example, “B” schools earn points equal to a school that has 70& of students passing AIMS and generally achieves typical or greater academic growth with its population of students than most schools. “C” schools demonstrate an average level of performance. For example, “C” schools earn points equal to a school that has 50% of students passing AIMS and generally achieves typical academic growth with its population of students than most schools. “D” schools demonstrate a below average level of performance. For example, “D” schools earn fewer points than a school that has 50% of students passing AIMS and does not achieve typical or greater academic growth with its population of students than most schools. “F” schools are those that score as a “D” school for three consecutive years. “F” schools are placed in school improvement by the Arizona Department of Education (2012).

6. 6. Shared high-capacity items (9%) were scored as a 4 or 5 by staff and principal respondents.

7. 7. Shared low-capacity mean scores (23%) consisted of a 1 or 2 on a 5-point scale. Survey respondents scored 49% of the 161 Likert-scale items (responses coded 1 through 5) as a 3, indicating medium capacity. For more specific information about the analysis of the pre-TLDP training, please see Ylimaki, Bennett, Fan, et al., 2012.

8. 8. Effect sizes reported pertain to sections of survey items and were computed by the External Evaluation Team (Cloud). The authors do not have access to effect sizes on each survey item.

9. 9. We were only able to obtain state accountability letter grades for both 2011 and 2012 only on 99 schools in Arizona. Some Arizona schools did not receive letter grades during this period due to small size and other factors relative to recent changes in the methodology (Arizona Department of Education, 2012). The largest proportion (65%) of the sample was comprised of schools that participated in only some of the TLDP training as compared to schools that were involved in all aspects (16%) or not at all (19%).