Tying it Together: Education-Focused Community Change Initiatives

Policymakers make many demands of our schools to produce academic success. At the same time, community organizations, government agencies, faith-based institutions, and other groups often are providing support to students and their families, especially those from high-poverty backgrounds, that are meant to impact education but are often insufficient, uncoordinated, or redundant. In many cases, these institutions lack access to schools and school leaders. What’s missing from the dominant education reform discourse is a coordinated education-focused approach that mobilizes community assets to effectively improve academic and developmental outcomes for students. This study explores how education-focused comprehensive community change initiatives (CCIs) that utilize a partnership approach are organized and sustained. In this study, I examine three research questions: 1. Why and how do school system-level community change initiative (CCI) partnerships form? 2. What are the organizational, financial, and political structures that support sustainable CCIs? What, in particular, are their connections to the school systems they seek to impact? 3. What are the leadership functions and structures found within CCIs? How are leadership functions distributed across schools and agencies within communities? To answer these questions, I used a cross-case study approach that employed a secondary data analysis of data that were collected as part of a larger research study sponsored by a national organization. The original study design included site visits and extended interviews with educators, community leaders and practitioners about community school initiatives, one type of CCI. This study demonstrates that characteristics of sustained education-focused CCIs include leaders that are critical to starting the CCIs and are willing to collaborate across institutions, a focus on community problems, building on previous efforts, strategies to improve service delivery, a focus on education and schools in particular, organizational arrangements that create shared leadership and ownership for the CCI, an intermediary to support the initial vision and collaborative leadership groups, diversified funding approaches, and political support. These findings add to the literature about the growing number of education-focused CCIs. The study’s primary recommendation—that institutions need to work across boundaries in order to sustain CCIs organizationally, financially, and politically—can help policymakers as they develop new collaborative approaches to achieving educational goals.

REDUCING TEACHER ATTRITION: THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF BUILDING PRINCIPALS IN A LARGE URBAN DISTRICT TO SUPPORT TEACHER RETENTION

The high rate of teacher attrition in urban schools is well documented. While this does not seem like a problem in Carter County, this equates to hundreds of teachers that need to be replaced annually. Since school year (SY) 2007-08, Carter County has lost over 7,100 teachers, approximately half of (50.1%) of whom resigned, often going to neighboring, higher-paying jurisdictions as suggested by exit survey data (SY2016-2020 Strategic Plan). Included in this study is a range of practices principals use to retain teachers. While the role of the principal is recognized as a critical element in teacher retention, few studies explore the specific practices principals implement to retain teachers and how they use their time to accomplish this task. Through interviews, observations, document analysis and reflective notes, the study identifies the practices four elementary school principals of high and relatively low attrition schools use to support teacher retention. In doing so, the study uses a qualitative cross-case analysis approach. The researcher examined the following leadership practices of the principal and their impact on teacher retention: (a) providing leadership, (b) supporting new teachers, (c) training and mentoring teaching staff, (d) creating opportunities for collaboration, (d) creating a positive school climate, and (e) promoting teacher autonomy. The following research questions served as a foundational guide for the development and implementation of this study: 1. How do principals prioritize addressing teacher attrition or retention relative to all of their other responsibilities? How do they allocate their time to this challenge? 2. What do principals in schools with low attrition rates do to promote retention that principals in high attrition schools do not? What specific practices or interventions are principals in these two types of schools utilizing to retain teachers? Is there evidence to support their use of the practices? The findings that emerge from the data revealed the various practices principals use to influence and support teachers do not differ between the four schools.