Synthesis

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vpsf20

Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/vpsf20

Perspectives of two principals: how to mitigate learning loss in turnaround schools

Douglas A. Taylor, Nicole Lewis, Aneta Walker & Julie A. Gray

To cite this article: Douglas A. Taylor, Nicole Lewis, Aneta Walker & Julie A. Gray (2023) Perspectives of two principals: how to mitigate learning loss in turnaround schools, Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 67:3, 145-154, DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2023.2204831

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2023.2204831

Published online: 28 Apr 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 297

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Preventing School Failure: alternative education For children and Youth 2023, vol. 67, no. 3, 145–154

Perspectives of two principals: how to mitigate learning loss in turnaround schools

Douglas A. Taylora, Nicole Lewisb, Aneta Walkerc and Julie A. Grayc aMacon county School System, tuskegee, al, uSa; bnortheast independent School district, San antonio, tX, uSa; cuniversity of West Florida, Pensacola, Fl, uSa

ABSTRACT Schools are facing many issues as a result of the recent pandemic, as well as societal pressures for all students to achieve. There have been unprecedented changes in the educational landscape with a growing concern for students’ success and learning loss. Instructional leaders are expected to make innovative changes to meet the instructional needs of all students in K-12 public schools, whether brick-and-mortar or virtual platform. Principals are called to lead their schools and organize the initiatives needed to improve the constantly shifting and complex school environment. The authors will describe the effective efforts of two school leaders who supported innovative changes that resulted in two turnaround schools and addressed student learning loss. As instructional leaders and practitioners in the field, it is essential to support and sustain initiatives that promote student achievement and lessen learning loss.

Over the last several years, schools around the world have experienced unprecedented circumstances with an almost overnight shift to virtual learning due to the recent pan- demic and the use of virtual learning platforms (Khan & Ahmed, 2021). As educators shifted to virtual teaching plat- forms and parents/guardians became much more active in their children’s education, many began to recognize gaps in the content of the instructional materials presented to stu- dents and their learning capacity. Additionally, students did not retain content and students were not remembering infor- mation from day to day or week to week, which is defined as learning loss (Great Schools Partnership, 2013). Fortunately, many school leaders have displayed fortitude and resiliency to overcome the obstacles, which were imped- ing the long-term retention of learning for many students.

Instructional leaders have a responsibility to promote instructional change and innovation among educators to intervene and address student learning loss directly (Darling-Hammond et  al., 2007). Teachers are able to inte- grate technology, virtual learning platforms, a plethora of classroom resources, and differentiated instructional strate- gies to meet students’ academic needs. It is important for principals to consider innovative ways to reorganize or structure the school environment to support educators in their instructional planning and implementation. Instructional leaders are looking beyond the current status of their schools and students to envision and plan for new possibilities and potential innovation (Fotheringham et  al., 2022).

Leaders must develop and strategize effective ways to tailor learning environments to meet the needs of all stu- dents. While the pandemic has forced education to bring

innovation and change to the forefront, the change process can be complex and often difficult (Bouffard, 2019). To meet federal and state accountability standards, combat the growing achievement gap in the educational system, and address low academic achievement, school leaders often implement changes that only last for short time due to a number of proposed initiatives (Darling-Hammond, 2007, 2012; NCES, 2018). Even when the innovations are sound, many are unsuccessful. Marzano et  al. (2005) proposed this attempt at curriculum change, which often occurs because the leadership in the change initiative does not properly address the requirements of the innovation to be sustainable. It is noted that change must be expressed from the super- vision of work to the empowerment of school staff with a change in the roles of the principal and teacher. There must be accountability on the part of the whole staff to build a sense of collective efficacy.

Literature review

Although many of the current reform models have been in place for years, the issue of student underperformance remains an issue. Previous legislation of the No Child Left Behind Act prompted new measures for school accountabil- ity (Ravitch, 2010), which eventually led to the passage of the Race to the Top (RTTT) Act of 2009 (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). RTTT funding offered the lowest per- forming school districts the opportunity to implement one of four school reform models  to facilitate educational improvements. The four models include turnaround, trans- formation, restart or closure (U.S. DOE, 2009).

© 2023 taylor & Francis group, llc CONTACT Julie a. gray [email protected] School of education, university of West Florida, Pensacola, Fl, uSa.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2023.2204831

KEYWORDS learning loss; turnaround schools; instructional leadership

146 D. A. TAYLOR ET AL.

School turnaround reform

School turnaround is defined as “a dramatic and com- prehensive intervention in a low-performing school that produces significant gains in student achievement within two academic years” (Calkins et  al., 2007, p. 2). Other studies have suggested that sustainable change takes three to seven years to achieve (Fullan, 2007; Reinholz & Andrews, 2020). The turnaround model represents an effective strategy for quick student achievement results in schools with a plan to sustain them. Turning around schools can be more challenging than school improvement initiatives as the results are achieved in a shorter time span and with long-term results (Calkins et  al., 2007). It is critical that this process of change is examined care- fully. Moreover, this paper will examine the role of school leadership and ways that two diverse schools addressed curriculum, climate, and cultural changes necessitated during the transitions through the pandemic as well as in a post pandemic era. Two former middle school prin- cipals will discuss leadership in their individual turn- around schools, as well as share their innovative practices to prevent student learning loss and improve student outcomes in two diverse schools.

There are three stages in the process to turn a school around, which are: 1) declining performance, 2) crisis sta- bilization, and 3) sustaining and improving performance (Leithwood & Strauss, 2009). Turnaround school leadership practices tend to fall into the following categories: direction setting, developing people, redesigning the organization, and managing the instructional program. An effective principal can significantly influence student achievement by address- ing issues related to student absenteeism, as well as teacher work conditions, job satisfaction, and attrition (Grissom et  al., 2021). A school can be improved by engaging in instructionally focused collaboration and professional learn- ing communities (PLCs), and managing personnel and resources strategically.

When addressing the concept of learning loss, success- ful turnaround principals tend to focus on early wins by addressing areas of high priority, breaking unhealthy orga- nizational trends, promoting innovation and experimen- tation, hiring the ‘right’ people, using data to drive decision making, and lead all turnaround efforts. Fawcett (2008) reports that highly effective turnaround principals see their most important role as that of instructional leader. The principals who are school transformers typi- cally devote “the majority of their efforts evaluating, coaching, and supporting their teachers to do a first-rate job” (Fawcett, 2008, p. 3). Effective leadership is the piv- otal key to successful turnaround efforts (Leithwood & Strauss, 2009). The principal’s role and responsibilities have become more complex as accountability measures and expectations have also changed (Fullan, 2018; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Instructional leaders need to improve instructional practices, increase levels of teacher engagement, use available resources and funding, support teachers’ work, and navigate established policy (Kraft & Gilmour, 2017).

Learning loss

Learning loss is defined as “any specific or general loss of knowledge and skills or to reversals in academic progress” (Great Schools Partnership, 2013, para. 1). This type of loss can be due to a discontinuation or time gaps in a student’s formal education. Examples include learning loss over the summer break, a long school holiday, weekend, after a move from one district to another, after a promotion from ele- mentary to middle or middle to high school or more recently due to the sudden shift to online learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A break can also be due to a student’s status as homeless, immigration, foster care tran- sitions, family divorce, separation or other change, and those who drop out of school. Those who fall into any of the circumstances are referred to as “students with interrupted formal education” (SIFE) and tend to be more likely to experience learning loss (Great Schools Partnership, 2013, para. 3).

Schools may influence student learning loss in a variety of ways ranging from ineffective teaching, out-of-school suspensions, poorly designed class schedules, block schedule, and other organizational limitations or factors (Great Schools Partnership, 2013; Stoltzfus, 2021). For example, students who have a class on block schedule may experience a semes- ter or year-long gap for a specific subject area (math, sci- ence, world languages, etc.), which can increase the need for remediation, review or reteaching. In this article, two middle school principals highlight their efforts to address learning loss in innovative ways. The integrated approach has interconnected concepts of creating a shared purpose; setting high expectations and fostering a culture focused on improving instructional practices; establishing structures to reflect school goals; providing support systems for increasing professional learning for teachers; and modeling the values and beliefs of the school. In the two schools selected for this article, the authors describe the innovative practices they implemented to challenge the status quo to support student success in their schools.

Healthy school climates

Schools with healthy climates tend to perform better in the following areas: student achievement, student attendance, teacher retention, college and career readiness, and student discipline (McGiboney, 2016). The physical climate of a school is comprised of the overall structure, physical and emotional safety of students and staff, student discipline, and the institutional environment (McGiboney, 2016). The academic climate of a school includes teaching and learning, professional learning and development, and school leadership and learning (McGiboney, 2016; Thapa et  al., 2013). The organizational social climate is made up of school connect- edness, stakeholder experience, diversity and cultural com- petence, and the quality of interpersonal relationships among all stakeholder groups (McGiboney, 2016). Due to the com- plexity of each school’s climate, the leadership teams of the two schools focused on the most critical areas of need to minimize learning loss and increase student achievement

PREvENTING SchOOL FAILuRE: ALTERNATIvE EDucATION FOR chILDREN AND YOuTh 147

using research-based best practices. The two school princi- pals highlighted in the article recognized that a positive school climate is the essence for a school’s success and share practical strategies executed in their schools to strengthen the learning environments.

Schools overview

The two middle school principals are from geographically different regions in the United States. The first principal, Principal A, led Middle School A (MSA) located in Texas. The Title I school serves close to 1,100 students with over 70% eligible for free or reduced lunch and has a 14% mobil- ity rate. The student body is made up of the following demographics: 85% Hispanic, 9% African American, and 4% White (Texas Education Agency, 2021). Based upon state indicators, almost 75% of students at MSA are considered to be at-risk, which are made up of: 13% English Learners (EL), 12% eligible for special education services, 8% diag- nosed with Dyslexia, 28% identified with behavioral disabil- ities, and 14% with other at-risk factors. MSA employs 61 full-time classroom teachers (general education, special edu- cation, and electives), four instructional coaches (who teach half day and coach half day), 12 instructional assistants, two academic deans, three assistant principals, and one principal. The remaining staff are auxiliary and non-instructional assistants for a total of almost 100 employees.

Principal B led Middle School B (MSB), which is a lin- guistically diverse, high-poverty school located in central Alabama. MSB serves approximately 1,000 students in grades six through eight. Student demographics include 86% Black, 6% White, and 8% Latinx (Alabama State Department of Education, 2019). Approximately 19% of the student popu- lation is enrolled in special education, while 11% of the student population is enrolled in the English as a Second Language program. 100% of the student population is eli- gible for free lunch based on family income levels being below the poverty line. MSB has 85 employees, including 55 classroom teachers, three assistant principals, one prin- cipal, and 26 classified support employees (Alabama State Department of Education, 2019).

State accountability

Texas accountability information

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) provides an overall accountability rating to each school based on test scores, graduation rates, and other factors such as college and career readiness (TEA, 2021), but for middle school campuses, the standardized test scores are the sole factor used to determine the overall performance and letter grade of the school. At the end of the 2016–2017 school year, the campus scores from the state standardized test indicated that the school would be deemed as a school in need of improvement (IR), which meant that the overall passing rate for students was below the specified state goal or the school was not meeting the expectations for closing the gaps in various identified

subpopulations. In addition to the failing test scores, there were climate and culture concerns, high rates of turnover in staff, and campus discipline problems. More specifically, the school had the highest number of referrals out of the secondary schools in the district and there were 31 vacancies to hire for in the summer of 2017.

Alabama accountability information

The Alabama State Department of Education (ASDOE) cal- culates the report card grade for middle schools based on academic achievement, academic growth, chronic absentee- ism, and English proficiency progress for non-native English speakers (ASDOE, 2018). Schools assigned a grade of D or F for at least three consecutive school terms are placed on the Alabama failing schools list (ASDOE, 2018). MSB received a report card grade of 60 (D) at the conclusion of the 2018–2019 school term based 20.8% proficiency in read- ing, 11.4% proficiency in math, and 11.96% proficiency in science (ASDOE, 2019). Additionally, MSB experienced a host of climate issues during the 2018–2019 school term related to (a) human resources, (b) student discipline, (c) school operations, and (d) school facilities. Principal B developed an Alabama Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP) to address each of these areas, minimize learning loss, and improve the physical, academic, and social climate of MSB.

Principal A and MSA initiatives

Initial steps

Principal A began by asking the MSA Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) to meet over the summer to deter- mine the root cause of the school’s academic and climate issues. Using a reflective approach, the ILT analyzed data, identified the main issues to be addressed, and developed a Turn-Around Plan (TAP) and Campus Improvement Plan (CIP). The ILT further divided the planning processes into two main categories, academics and behavior. Principal A led the efforts to raise student achievement by promoting high-quality instruction, strengthening the quality of lesson planning, planning intentional and differentiated professional development, and using data-driven teaching and learning strategies. The ILT developed a school-wide behavior hand- book as a tool for teachers and staff to reference, which as shared with teachers to ensure fidelity of behavioral expec- tations. Over the academic year, the faculty worked toward these goals with a common purpose and built a community of invested staff members. As the culture of the school became more feedback-rich, teachers began to accept and act upon the feedback provided and to solicit instructional suggestions when the leadership team visited classrooms.

Prioritized initiatives implemented to minimize learning loss

The instructional leadership team and Partnerships The ILT met weekly outside of the school day for one and a half to two hours. Initially, Principal A created the agenda

148 D. A. TAYLOR ET AL.

with standing items related to instruction and collaboration. Eventually, Principal A encouraged other team members to lead the meetings to promote shared leadership and suggest agenda items. The ILT was the catalyst for all other initia- tives at MSA over the next three years. It became evident that external partners would be needed to help address the school’s academic and behavioral concerns. As a result, MSA partnered with a team of behavior consultants, Emergent Tree (ET), and another service center to support academic concerns, Raise Up Texas (RUT).

The initiative with ET (2020) centered around the devel- opment of a campus-wide behavior system. The goals were to establish clear expectations for classroom and common area student behavior. A campus behavior team (CBT), made up of teachers, also created a guide to describe Tier I, II, and III-level behaviors with interventions for each. The CBT met monthly and provided professional development for staff. Teachers were also encouraged to submit the names of students whose behaviors were challenging to the CTB for suggestions, feedback, and appropriate strategies.

The administrative team also increased their visibility in classrooms and common areas during transition periods, namely before and after school and during class changes. Mobile desks were used by administrators for brief confer- ences with students referred for discipline issues to reduce missed instructional time. As a way to reinforce positive student behavior administrators and faculty issued a ‘ticket’ as an acknowledgement to students who demonstrated exem- plary behavior as a positive reinforcement. Each class set a goal for the number of tickets received and once achieved planned a celebration. A campus-wide chart was also dis- played to encourage students and teachers to reach their goals. The effectiveness of this system was evident in a 42% reduction of discipline referrals in the first month.

The RUT team supported teachers in unpacking the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), understanding the level of rigor needed, and planning aligned instructional activities and assessments. Another initiative focused on stu- dents being able to clearly articulate what they were learning and the importance of each standard. Schools that partnered with RUT were ten times more likely to achieve significant gains on standardized assessments.

Key interventions There were four main initiatives implemented to close learn- ing loss gaps and proactively prevent further learning loss. The first intervention involved restructuring the campus-wide behavior plan to follow the Effective Schools Framework (TEA, 2021). The other key interventions included: lesson plan redesign and coaching feedback, hiring quality staff and teachers, and offering differentiated professional devel- opment for teachers. In terms of the pandemic, for both schools, some of the interventions began prior to and lasted throughout the pandemic into the post-pandemic phase.

Hiring high-quality staff Principal A was very selective in hiring the best candidates, who shared the school’s new vision and mission for

academic success. Unfortunately, at the end of the first year there were still 17 teaching vacancies. A more aggressive plan was initiated to retain the current staff by providing differentiated professional development, seeking teacher feed- back via climate surveys, requesting constructive criticism from the ILT about Principal A’s leadership, and redesigning the interview protocols for teachers.

Confidential climate surveys were completed by staff and teachers monthly. The goal was to determine areas of strength, where improvements needed to be made, and sug- gestions for doing such. By asking the same questions each month, Principal A could look for data trends, make any necessary improvements with the support of the ILT, reflect on the progress made, and celebrate each achievement. Principal A risked being vulnerable amidst the feedback shared, which seemed beneficial as teachers reported greater satisfaction in the school’s climate and their jobs. The overall quality of instruction also improved with more fidelity to campus and district initiatives.

Lesson plan redesign and consistent focus walks After analyzing state standardized test results, the ILT decided to redesign the lesson plan format to provide more meaningful learning experiences for students. They selected key “look-for” and “must have” components for lesson plans and walk-through observation forms. After practice and training sessions, teachers conducted peer reviews of each other’s lesson plans and grading rubrics. Additional training was provided about setting learning targets and purposeful instruction. The ILT then initiated weekly focus walks to assess the overall quality of instruction, provide immediate formative feedback to teachers, and to focus on learning targets for purposeful instruction. Prior to this system, teachers only received instructional feedback through their formal observations and annual evaluation.

Initially, Principal A led the ILT through a calibration training to ensure that teacher feedback would be aligned to the observation rubric designed by the team. After several rounds of classroom focus walks and calibration of findings, the ILT members shared prompt, informal, non-evaluative feedback with teachers. The goal was for teachers to receive a four or five out of five rating on the focus walk rubric and demonstrate instructional improvements based on the actionable feedback and follow-up discussions. Coaching sessions were scheduled for those not making improvements or initiating the recommendations. An overall tracking sys- tem was developed to determine patterns across content areas, grade levels, and campus-wide, as well as by teacher. Finally, the teachers viewed the members of the ILT as their thinking partners, who highlighted areas for improvement, as well as strategies for how to make changes.

Differentiated and intentional professional development Professional development (PD) was differentiated, purpose- ful, intentional, and based on goals developed at the begin- ning of the year. The individual needs and strengths of teachers and staff were also considered when determining PD. After analyzing data from focus walks, the ILT

PREvENTING SchOOL FAILuRE: ALTERNATIvE EDucATION FOR chILDREN AND YOuTh 149

determined that PD sessions would be offered about grading practices, effective classroom management, instructional strategies, teaching students in poverty, establishing learning targets, mental health and wellness, and content-specific instructional practices. Teachers and staff were required to attend some sessions, but could choose from a list of addi- tional sessions to attend.

Data-informed decision making Principal A was passionate about analyzing data to inform all instructional and organizational practices. The ILT deter- mined that formative assessments would be given to stu- dents every two weeks to be tracked, analyzed, and discussed in professional learning communities (PLCs) sessions. Principal A led quarterly data analysis sessions, helped teacher to analyze the data and develop strategies for addressing areas of concern, and provided graphic organiz- ers for PLCs to reflect upon several data-related questions. Each PLC reviewed their student data, the CIP, and estab- lished a plan of action for the future. Because of their involvement in the analysis of the data and development of the CIP, teachers were more engaged in the overall improvement efforts. Benchmark test results and standard- ized test scores improved over the first two years of data-informed decision making.

Principal B and MSB initiatives

Initial steps

Principal B also established a School Leadership Team to implement several critical initiatives to minimize learning loss and remove barriers to student achievement. Each part of the plan was founded on research-based best practices. Upon analyzing a range of MSB’s attendance, student grades, teacher evaluation, standardized test, and discipline records, Principal B outlined several key interventions, including human resources, student discipline, school operations, inter- vention and remedial instruction, teacher observations and evaluations, professional development, and teacher leadership.

Key interventions

Human resources In July 2019, human resources were a significant concern because MSB had 35 certified teacher vacancies in mathe- matics, science, special education, English, and elective areas. There were also ten classified vacancies to include parapro- fessionals, secretaries, and custodians, and security officers. With extensive recruitment efforts, Principal B filled all positions with certified teachers across all core and elective content areas. A variety of employment databases were uti- lized to post and fill vacancies. Principal B’s recruitment efforts were successful in beginning each year without vacan- cies. As a high-poverty middle school, approximately $60,000 of Title I funds were available to help in closing the achieve- ment gap to ensure equitable learning experiences for all MSB students. Positions were added using 80% of the Title

I funds available to hire two assistant principals, one instruc- tional coach, an attendance secretary, and four campus behavioral aides.

The addition of two assistant principals allowed each grade level to have its own dedicated administrator to assist with discipline, instruction, and school operations. The instructional coach provided support for teachers with classroom instruction, assessment, and tiered intervention. The attendance secretary provided support with reducing chronic absenteeism, which is a major component of the accountability score awarded to each public school in Alabama (ASDE, 2018). The campus behavioral aides helped in maintaining a safe and orderly environment that was conducive to learning. The campus behavioral aides removed disruptive students from class and engaged in progressive behavioral modification. General counseling and goal setting were provided by the campus behavioral aides when students struggled to adhere to behavioral and academic expectations.

Student discipline Serious violations of the student conduct manual occurred frequently during the 2018–2019 school term. Data from the student information system revealed that there were 503 suspensions issued during the 2018–2019 school term. The most common discipline infractions were (a) fighting, (b) profanity and vulgarity, (c) willful disobedience, (d) threats and intimidation, and (e) disorderly conduct. To improve student discipline, Principal B developed a new academic setting, Promise Academy, for students with habitually dis- ruptive behavior. In order to decrease the number of out of school suspensions, the school leadership team concep- tualized, with input from the faculty the idea of the Promise Academy conceptualized.

The Promise Academy offered a contained setting to provide intensive academic, behavioral, and social support for students with the goal of behavioral interventions which allowed students to return back to the classroom. Students assigned to the Promise Academy did not transition class- rooms, but rather the teachers came to the students. There were three classrooms designated for the Promise Academy to ensure smaller class size and specific grade levels. The key component for the Promise Academy was continued support from their classroom teacher as well as having a dedicated staff member to provide ongoing instructional support.

Each student received an individualized student success plan that described the present levels of academic and behavioral performance, targeted goals, accommodations, and services, which was also reviewed with the student and parents. Students were rated using a rubric each class period against program expectations, (a) be productive, (b) be engaged and prepared to learn, (c) be respectful, and (d) be safe. Students received daily social and behavioral skills instruction in an effort to ensure appropriate replacement behaviors were adopted. The goal was to ensure students learned how to handle conflict appropriately, demonstrate respect for others, manage their impulse control, and develop

150 D. A. TAYLOR ET AL.

cognitive restructuring strategies that could be utilized to calm themselves down when angered or upset. The program was successful in helping students improve their behavior, attendance, and discipline. All but two of the 30 students passed all required courses, reduced problematic behaviors, and returned to a traditional classroom setting with minimal support within one academic year.

In addition, a student discipline matrix was developed, which outlined administrative actions for violations of the student conduct manual and was aligned to district policies. After-school detention, in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, and alternative school assignments were rou- tinely implemented to ensure students were held accountable for their behavior. By integrating ideas from the faculty, new guidelines, and the support of a Response to Intervention (RTI) tiered system, the school leadership team established an ISS program that held students accountable for their behavior. Students were rated each period using a rubric, which required all assignments to be completed and school and program rules to be followed. If students did not meet program requirements, additional time in ISS was assigned leading up to an out-of-school suspension. According to the 2018–2019 school discipline data, 34 % (n = 214) of the incidents were due to fighting, while another 34% (n = 214) were repeated offenses of willful and persistent defiance resulting in out of school or classroom suspensions. Because there was a 28% reduction in students being assigned to the ISS program, it was determined that the programmatic changes were successful.

Exclusionary discipline, including out-of-school suspen- sion and alternative school placement, were routinely imple- mented for aggressive, violent behavior. Behavior that compromised the safety of others was not tolerated. Exclusionary discipline was generally implemented for (a) fighting, (b) threats and intimidation, (c) disorderly conduct, (d) sexual harassment, (e) possession of weapons and/or drugs, and (f) leaving campus without permission. Because exclusionary discipline was not consistently implemented during the 2018–2019 school term, student behavior improved. Students that posed a significant threat to the safety of others were placed at the alternative school for at least a full nine-week grading period after being provided with due process. The implementation of exclusionary dis- cipline resulted in a 66% reduction in the serious offenses previously mentioned.

School operations Effective operational procedures were implemented at MSB to facilitate success. Primary areas of concern were arrival and dismissal, the floorplan and transitions between classes, student safety, and master scheduling. Changes were made during student arrival to ensure student safety. Students were required to walk through metal detectors during morn- ing arrival which was a change from the 2018–2019 school term. A security officer, administrator, and a campus behav- ior aide were placed at each security checkpoint. With regard to dismissal, new procedures were implemented to ensure student safety and supervision.

Dismissal became a staggered process, as bus riders were dismissed first in groups to ensure student safety and super- vision. Once all busses had been called over the school’s intercom system, car riders and walkers were dismissed in a staggered manner by grade level. Additionally, the floor- plan was redesigned to have teachers in teams, based on a cohort model because MSB was 300 students over capacity. Each team included a teacher for mathematics, English, science, social studies, and special education. The creation of teams allowed students to transition within a small area of the building as opposed to transitioning to different hall- ways based on a previous departmentalized schedule.

The master schedule was redesigned to increase instruc- tional time for students, provide dedicated intervention courses for students, and provide common planning time for each team of teachers. A modified-block schedule was adopted with eight blocks. Students attended even blocks (2, 4, 6, and 8) on A-days while students attended odd blocks on B-days (1, 3, 5, and 7). Classes were 90-minute on the modified-block schedule. Teachers reported having more time to assist students with remedial skills and provide more comprehensive instruction on grade level standards. The master schedule also provided students with dedicated intervention courses. Each team of teachers also received common planning periods when students attended physical education. Common planning periods were utilized to review student performance, discuss upcoming academic standards, and plan for school improvement.

In an effort to improve student safety, Principal B devel- oped procedures for reporting safety concerns at MSB. There was a link on the school website that directed students to a form where students could report bullying, harassment, weapons, drugs, fights, and other concerns. The safety con- cerns were automatically emailed to school administrators after submission. Students had the option of reporting con- cerns anonymously if that made them feel more comfortable. Students were trained on how to complete the form during a series of student assemblies. To further support student safety, new procedures were implemented for safety drills, including fire, lockdown, and severe weather.

Intervention and remedial instruction Teaching and learning remained a constant focus in an effort to improve student achievement. An intervention program was designed to close achievement gaps for all students, which was implemented during each student’s mathematics and English intervention courses. Students completed a diag- nostic assessment to identify individual academic deficien- cies. Based on the results of the diagnostic assessment, individual learning paths were created for each student. The intervention period was divided into learning stations to ensure students received independent work time on the software, direct instruction from the classroom teacher, and independent work time to practice the skills learned during the direct instruction. The data from the intervention pro- gram was utilized to make decisions on professional devel- opment needs for employees and to develop school improvement goals.

PREvENTING SchOOL FAILuRE: ALTERNATIvE EDucATION FOR chILDREN AND YOuTh 151

Teacher observations and evaluations Classroom walk-throughs observations were routinely imple- mented to ensure that lessons were aligned with Alabama’s Strategic Teaching Framework, which encompasses before, during, and after strategies. Walk-through observation forms were created and utilized during observations. Teachers received a copy of the form after the observation was com- pleted. The leadership team focused on the following high-impact, observable teacher actions: clearly defined and visible standards-based learning objectives; an agenda board with before, during, and after strategies; rigorous student activities and tasks; student engagement; integration of tech- nology; and effective classroom management. Classroom walk-through observation data were reviewed and discussed during common planning time and faculty meetings. Areas needing development were identified and addressed with professional development and instructional coaching.

Professional development Title I funds were utilized to provide professional develop- ment opportunities for teachers based on a comprehensive needs assessment in which teachers identified areas in which they would like professional development opportunities. The results of the needs assessment were utilized to develop a comprehensive plan for professional development that included learning opportunities during the school day and release time for employees to engage in learning opportu- nities off-campus. Professional development was mainly job-embedded during common planning periods. However, substitute teachers were secured to enable teachers to par- ticipate in targeted professional development for an entire school day. Select teachers were sent to workshops with the expectation that they would bring new ideas and information back to the school to share with other teachers. Title I funds were also utilized the fund professional development oppor- tunities for school administrators and support staff.

Teacher leadership A distributive, horizontal leadership model was implemented to encourage collaboration, trust, and positive employee morale. Team leaders, the lead teacher for a grade level, were selected for each grade level and paid a $2,000 stipend for their service. Team leaders were required to complete an application and interview with school leadership. Team leaders supported teacher leadership within the school and managed major initiatives and activities for their assigned grade level including, (a) the budget awarded from Title I funds, (b) weekly meeting agendas, (c) special events for students and staff, and (d) served as a member of the school leadership team. Team leaders provided representation for teachers and shifted the previous vertical leadership style to a horizontal approach in which all stakeholders made decisions together. Additionally, Principal B ensured that all assistant principals implemented effective leadership prac- tices that supported a positive school climate. Ineffective leadership styles that attempted to control, direct or dictate employee behavior were not allowed. Professional develop- ment and training were provided to all administrators to

ensure they were prepared to lead using highly effective leadership practices that foster healthy working relationships.

An aspiring administrator cohort was also developed for teachers interested in leadership positions. Principal B pro- vided professional learning opportunities once per month after school for two hours on topics related to the princi- palship. Participants received training and development on master scheduling, assessing and managing school climate, managing human resources, and managing teaching and learning. Participants worked in small groups to read case studies and plan improvement initiatives collaboratively. As a result of the program, participants developed more refined leadership skills that were not merely theoretical. Participants developed master schedules, comprehensive improvement plans, and presented information to others. The skills learned during the aspiring administrator cohort helped the participants in securing teacher and administrator leadership positions within the system.

Principal A - lessons learned During the first year at School A, Principal A began by focusing on relationship-building; however, upon reflection, the leader realized it could not be the one area of focus when the was in a state of crisis. Therefore, earning the trust of the faculty and staff while developing positive, pro- fessional relationships proved to be more complicated than originally thought. It became apparent that there were more areas and subareas to be addressed first, which led to a shifting of priorities and redefining a clear vision. The roles of Principal A, the ILT, teachers, and staff members needed to be more clearly defined. Shared decision making, lead- ership, and responsibilities were essential to make the essen- tial improvements.

During the second year, Principal A was able to empha- size instructional practices and student behavioral expecta- tions, while the ILT modified the overall systems, processes, and protocols for School A. Over the second to fourth years at School A, the following initiatives were established: a campus-wide behavior system was changed once again, and in-house fidelity checks were conducted; the campus improvement plan and targeted improvement plan were reviewed and adjusted monthly, at minimum with feedback from teachers, teacher leaders, the leadership team, and parents; accountability systems were put in place to track the commitments of administrators and teachers; and the implementation of a bi-weekly tutoring club, with transpor- tation and snacks provided, to further combat learning loss. At the end of the fourth year and prior to accepting a leadership position in another school district, Principal A reflected on lessons learned, effective practices, and practices to avoid in the future.

Words of caution from Principal A

A school leader’s behavior affects the work and daily oper- ations at a school due to the influence the principal has on all stakeholders, especially teachers (Kars & Inandi, 2017).

152 D. A. TAYLOR ET AL.

Waters and Cameron (2007) and Marzano et  al. (2005) found some leadership responsibilities are negatively cor- related with second-order or drastic change. Three of the responsibilities were culture, communication, and input, which were essential to initiate and maintain second-order changes. It proved to be difficult to increase communication and have input into the overall culture when working to implement new initiatives. Teachers feel there is less cohe- sion or culture when the principal is viewed as less approachable about their concerns, and they do not think they have influence over the day-to-day functions of the school and decision making (Waters & Cameron, 2007).

Because many changes were being made, Principal A had to learn to communicate in a clear manner, allow staff the opportunity to ask clarifying questions, share their concerns and uncertainties, and celebrate progress. Admittingly, the last item did not come naturally. Because of Principal A’s focus on improving outcomes and growth mindset, once a goal was met, the leader was ready to move onto the next plan of action. However, Principal A realized that she could only be an effective leader if others were willing to follow. She has to share how each member of our campus family was of value.

Until these practices became habits, Principal A blocked out time for classroom walk-through observations, wrote encouraging notes to teachers, and reinstituted monthly ser- vice awards centered around School A’s core values. Additionally, she highlighted the ongoing quality instruction and high levels of student engagement by utilizing the school’s social media platforms. While the work was challenging, Principal A felt a sense of honor and privilege in leading a school in which the teachers, administrators, staff and stu- dents worked tirelessly to make improvements. It was evident that learning loss of at-risk students could be addressed through intentional interventions and a strategic, solid plan of which the ILT and teachers were committed to implement.

Principal B - lessons learned

Distributive leadership is essential, as the principal cannot assume all responsibility in isolation. During his time at School B, Principal B realized that he had assumed a large amount of the responsibilities, even with three assistant prin- cipals on staff. As he reflected, he realized he should have assigned more responsibilities to each assistant principal, par- ticularly in the area of school operations. The assistant prin- cipals were primarily utilized to handle student discipline for their respective grade level, although each administrator was more than capable of managing other areas of the school. If Principal B had provided more effective direction to each administrator, each assistant principal could have reached their greatest potential. The chaotic work environment served as a distractor and limited his ability to provide effective supervision for the administrative team. Effective principals should mentor and supervise each administrator.

Time is a principal’s greatest asset. It is incredibly important that principals allocate time to each component of the school, although this is easier said than accomplished. Upon

reflection, Principal B realized that he did not structure him- self for success with regard to time management. He allowed school operations, student discipline, and administrative duties to distract him from what was most important, student achievement. To be effective principals it is important to pro- actively structure their time by establishing a clear schedule and agenda for the week, which should be followed as closely as possible. Of course, the unexpected may occur, but devel- oping a schedule can provide a much-needed structure and plan for the principal. Highly effective principals create con- ditions for their success and strive to meet those conditions.

Human resources require a significant amount of time and attention from the principal. The recruitment and reten- tion of employees is a critical task in a high-poverty school because the environment is generally more stressful. Principal B realized that he did not do enough to motivate and retain teachers. While he did his best to maintain a positive atti- tude, there were days when he was completely exhausted from the demands of the principalship. It was difficult to motive others when he lacked motivation. He regrets not taking more time to reflect on ways to consider outside speakers, resources, and activities to motivate the staff and teachers. Effective principals must motivate all stakeholders to perform at their optimal level.

Words of caution from Principal B

The demands of the principalship increase daily. For this reason, it is important that principals maintain a healthy lifestyle with a proper diet, regular exercise, adequate sleep, and a strong professional and personal life balance. During his six years as a school leader, Principal B admitted that he worked many late nights, maintained a poor diet, rarely exercised, and routinely slept for less than 5 h each day. In being mentally and physically exhausted he limited his abil- ity to address and minimize learning loss for his students. He did not realize that he was not establishing healthy work habits that he could sustain over time. Principal B sacrificed time with family and friends to provide his full attention to his role as principal, becoming disconnected from many of his most enjoyable parts of his life. In doing so, he did not achieve his greatest potential as a person, professional, role model or instructional leader. Being committed to your professional goals is important, but principals must also be committed to a fulfilling personal life. Principal B would encourage other school leaders to develop schedules and routines that promote work and personal life balance.

Key findings

As schools across the United States explore options to com- bat the issue around learning loss, it is essential to discover best practices and program initiatives making an impact on improving student learning outcomes. Based on two inde- pendent studies from diverse schools, the findings provide relevant strategies and innovative initiatives, which may offer possible solutions to impact the effects of learning loss. Both school principals began their journeys for school

PREvENTING SchOOL FAILuRE: ALTERNATIvE EDucATION FOR chILDREN AND YOuTh 153

improvement and preventing learning loss due to lack of progress under state accountability measures.

Under Texas accountability, schools are graded based on test scores, graduation rates, and other factors such as col- lege and career readiness (TEA, 2021), but for middle school campuses, the standardized test scores are the sole factor used to determine the overall performance and letter grade of the school. School A was deemed as a school in need of improvement due to the overall passing rate as well as the lack of closing the achievement gap of students in the identified subgroup populations. In Alabama, School B was identified as a failing school. Failing schools fall within the bottom 6% of all rated public schools in Alabama. The ALSDE calculates the report card grade for middle schools based on academic achievement, academic growth, chronic absenteeism, and English proficiency progress for nonnative English speakers (Alabama State Department of Education, 2018). In addition, both schools faced significant issues related to climate and culture concerns, high rates of turn- over in staff, school operations, and campus discipline prob- lems. With the understanding of the impact of learning loss and student achievement, both principals worked collabo- ratively with their stakeholders to investigate and determine priorities for addressing learning loss issues. To start, each principal created School Improvement Plans that addressed barriers and clearly outlined the strategies and actions to be implemented.

In the beginning of the change process, both principals focused on top priorities, academics and behavior. Efforts on raising student achievement ranged from facilitating high-quality instruction by strengthening lesson planning, providing intentional professional development, qualified teaching staff, and data-driven teaching and learning. Discipline issues in School A were addressed and imple- mented through a school-wide behavior handbook developed with a strategic external partnership, developed common language, setting goals for improving behavior, and celebrat- ing accomplishments. In School B, the principal formulated a behavior matrix, which aligned to district policies and an initiative called Promise Academy to combat the overwhelm- ing challenges faced the school.

Even though handled somewhat differently, each school executed key interventions focused on closing the achieve- ment gaps, eliminating barriers, and preventing learning loss. School A Principal interventions were lesson plan rede- sign and coaching feedback, frequent non-evaluative obser- vations with immediate feedback, differentiated professional development, and an institution of a campus behavior sup- port team and the creation of a behavior handbook. Principal B focused interventions around the dimensions related to school climate: physical, academic, and social to minimize learning loss and remove barriers to learning.

To support the areas of teaching and learning, both prin- cipals noted the importance of hiring high quality staff. High turnover rates impacted both schools and were addressed in several ways. School A principal discovered the root cause of turnover was related to climate and culture. To address these factors climate surveys and interview pro- tocols were used to collect valuable data on how to improve

the climate and culture of the school. These processes helped strengthen trust and foster positive relationships. For School B, the principal initiated extensive recruitment efforts to fill positions as well as allocated school monetary resources to dedicate additional administrators, an instructional coach to support teachers, one attendance secretary to reduce chronic absenteeism, and four behavioral aides were hired to ensure a safe and orderly learning environment.

To support the instructional process, each principal improved teacher evaluation, classroom walk-throughs and providing constructive feedback. These improvements were aligned to each of the state’s standards and lessons were monitored to ensure proper alignment to the established teaching frameworks. Both principals designed new rubrics and forms to ensure established goals, learning targets, and protocols were implemented, and constructive feedback was provided in a timely manner. Professional development was addressed as a critical factor in preventing learning loss. The principals in both schools implemented differentiated, purposeful, and intentionally based on goals areas. Individual teacher needs and strengths were used in determining areas for professional development.

There were several key areas specific to each individual school that had an impact on proactively preventing learning loss. Partnerships, internal and external, played a role in School A. One of the strongest partnerships to impact School A was the internal leadership team. This team was highly collaborative and agenda items were focused on improving instruction. The external partnerships of Raise Up Texas and Emergent Tree Education centered on instruc- tionally practices and unpacking the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and establishing clear expec- tations for school and classroom behaviors. For School B, the principal an area of focus was improving overall school operations. This entailed improving arrival and dismissal, transitions between classes, safety, and master scheduling. Specific intervention programs were implemented to close the achievement gaps using a diagnostic assessment and providing individualized and small group instruction. Lastly, principal B identified the importance of utilizing a distrib- utive leadership model and teacher leadership to assist in the implementation of initiatives, activities, and the decision-making process.

Scholarly significance

School leaders have an undeniable impact on their students, learning environment, and school improvement efforts. Principals leading K-12 public schools in the U.S. would benefit from reading about the strategies Principals A and B integrated in their innovative approaches. The principal is called to act as an instructional leader beyond the pre- vious role as an administrator in promoting the instructional capacity of teachers (DeMatthews, 2014; Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018; Nicholson, 2016). It is essential for principals to develop a positive school climate by including representatives of each stakeholder group in the decision-making process. They are also responsible for encouraging and supportive

154 D. A. TAYLOR ET AL.

teachers’ collaborative efforts to improve their instructional practices to promote greater student achievement. Finally, it is essential for principals to support teachers by providing the resources and time for professional development, as well as offering specific instructional feedback to improvement their instructional practices which also promotes increased student achievement.

Notes on contributors

Douglas A. Taylor is the Director of Human Resources and Professional Development for the Macon County School District in Tuskegee, Alabama.

Nicole Lewis is the Executive Director of School Administration for the Northeast Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas.

Aneta Walker is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership in the School of Education at the University of West Florida.

Julie A. Gray is an Associate Professor at UWF, as well.

ORCID

Julie A. Gray http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5132-357X

References

Alabama State Department of Education. (2018). State Department of Education report card frequently asked questions. https://www.alsde. edu/sec/acct/Resources/February%202018%20Report%20Card%20 Frequently%20Asked%20Questions.pdf

Alabama State Department of Education. (2019). Report card. https:// reportcard.alsde.edu/Alsde/SelectSchool

Bouffard, S. (2019). What does personalized learning mean? Experts weigh in. The Learning Professional, 40(4), 28–31. https://learning- f o r w a r d . o r g / w p - c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 1 9 / 0 8 / w h a t - d o e s-personalized-learning-mean-experts-weigh-in.pdf

Braun, D., Gable, R. K., & Kite, S. L. (2011). Situated in a communi- ty of practice: Leadership preparation practices to support leadership in K-8 schools. The International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6(1), 14–21.

Brown-Ferrigno, T. (2007). Developing school leaders: Practitioner growth during an advanced leadership development program for principals and administrator-trained teachers. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(3), 1–30.

Calkins, A., Guenther, W., Belfiore, G., & Lash, D. (2007). The turn- around challenge: Why America’s best opportunity to improve student achievement lies in our worst-performing schools. Mass Insight Education & Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED538298.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher , 36(6) , 318–334. https://doi. org/10.3102/0013189X07308253

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. School Leadership Study. Final Report. Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

DeMatthews, D. (2014). Principal and teacher collaboration: An ex- ploration of distributed leadership in professional learning commu- nities. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 2(2), 176–206. https://doi.org/10.447/ijelm.2014.16

Fawcett, Y. B. (2008). A case study of: Leadership practices of the turn- around principal. (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech).

Fotheringham, P., Harriott, T., Healy, G., Arenge, G., & Wilson, E. (2022). Pressures and influences on school leaders navigating pol- icy development during the COVID-19 pandemic. British Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 201–227. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.uwf. edu/10.1002/berj.3760

Fullan, M. (2007). Change theory as a force for school improvement. In J. M. Burger, C. F. Webber, & P. Klinck (Eds.), Intelligent lead- ership. Studies in educational leadership (Vol. 6, pp. 27–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6022-9_3

Fullan, M. (2018). The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact. Wiley.

Great Schools Partnership. (2013). The glossary of education reform: Learning loss. https://www.edglossary.org/learning-loss/

Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. [Research report]. The Wallace Foundation.

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School. Teachers College Press.

Kars, M., & Inandi, Y. (2017). Relationship between school principals’ leadership behaviors and teachers’ organizational trust. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 18, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.14689/ ejer.2018.74.8

Khan, M., & Ahmed, J. (2021). Child education in the time of pan- demic: Learning loss and dropout. Children and Youth Services Review, 127, 106065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106065

Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2017). Revisiting The Widget Effect: Teacher Evaluation Reforms and the Distribution of Teacher Effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46(5), 234–249. https://doi. org/10.3102/0013189X17718797

Leithwood, K., & Strauss, T. (2009). Turnaround schools: Leadership lessons. Education Canada, 49(2), 27–29.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McGiboney, G. (2016). The psychology of school climate. Cambridge Scholars.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Concentration of pub- lic school students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. https:// nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clb.asp

Nelson, C., & Dunsmore, K. (2018). A leaders’ guide to building in- structional capacity [White paper]. Literacy Organizational Capacity Initiative, The University of Chicago. www.norc.org/PDFs/LOCI/ District%20Capacity%20White%20Paper_2018.pdf

Nicholson, D. W. (2016). Philosophy of education in action: An inquiry-based approach. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731179

Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. Basic Books.

Reinholz, D., & Andrews, T. (2020). Change theory and theory of change: What’s the difference anyway? International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–12. https://stemeducationjournal.springeropen. com/articles/10.1186/s40594-020-0202-3 https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40594-020-0202-3

Stoltzfus, K. (2021). Why “learning loss” is so complicated (and how to address it constructively). ASCD. https://www.ascd.org/blogs/ why-learning-loss-is-so-complicated-and-how-to-address- it-constructively

Texas Education Agency. (2021). Effective schools framework. https:// texasesf.org

Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357–385. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907

U.S. Department of Education. (2009, November). Race to the top program executive summary. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/ racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

Waters, T. W., & Cameron, G. (2007). The balanced leadership frame- work: Connecting vision with action. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.