Conference Agenda

Objectives

The purpose of this study is to improve understanding about school leaders’ capacity to directly influence student outcomes. To achieve this purpose, the study focused on assistant principals (APs) and students at risk of dropping out of school (SARDOs). Specifically, the study exploited the random assignment of SARDOs to a mentoring intervention conducted by APs to study the effect of leaders to prevent dropping out.

Background and Framework

Several areas of research informed the framework for the development, implementation, and study of this intervention. Overall, the intervention relied on the framework of high reliability organizations (Orton & Weick, 1990), with a focus on school implementation (Stringfield et al., 2008 & 2012). The development of the intervention relied on evidence from the dropout literature to accurately and reliably identify SARDOs (Bowers et al., 2013; Dynarski et al., 2008). Expanding on evidence about the influence of school leaders (Silva et al., 2011) and mentoring (McDaniel & Yarbrough, 2016; Robertson, 2016), the intervention used APs to mentor SARDOs.

Research Questions

The study included two research questions:

1. Do differences in academic outcomes, as measured by grade point average (GPA) and on-track status, exist between SARDOs who experienced the mentoring intervention and those in the control condition?

2. Do differences in non-academic outcomes, as measured by attendance and office discipline referrals (ODRs) exist between SARDOs who experienced the mentoring intervention and those in the control condition?

Methods and Data Sources

The study examined the effectiveness of a year-long mentoring intervention in a suburban secondary school. The research design exploited the random assignment of 75 SARDOs to one of three AP mentors. Given the random assignment, we used analysis of variance to examine differences in two academic and two non-academic measures between the intervention and control groups. Academic factors included the students’ GPA and course completion. Non-academic factors included students’ attendance and ODRs.

Results

Analyses indicated that the entire sample exhibited improvement in GPA and ODRs, but also poorer rates of attendance. However, the analyses did not reveal statistically significant differences in the overall sample between SARDOs in the intervention and control groups. Further subgroup analysis did reveal positive effects of the intervention for historically marginalized students, including students identifying as economically disadvantaged and from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Educational Importance

This research contributes important findings to discussions of theory, practice, and policy. First, the study provides insights about how school leaders can help ensure students graduate from secondary school. Second, the implementation in a suburban school context expands the current research, which examined mostly urban contexts.

Conference Theme Connection

This research presentation connects to the conference theme in multiple ways. First, the work included school leaders attempting to learn how to lead a more effective school by developing and evaluating a pilot intervention. Second, the school leaders involved with the intervention leveraged existing research evidence and local data to develop, implement, and evaluate the innovation. Finally, the efforts to assist SARDOs demonstrated the school leaders’ and authors’ commitment to promoting equitable and just schools.

The area of trauma-informed positive education (TIPE) is a recently emerging field in educational studies, though there is a paucity of literature that considers the convergence of TIPE and professional learning, especially in different global contexts. Schools serving communities contending with educational inequity have many students identified as trauma-affected with significant unmet learning and social emotional needs. However, as research continues to track students made more vulnerable due to COVID-19 health concerns, and other COVID-related associated family instability and violence, inadequate education provision of online and distance learning, and lack of access to technology, there is now even greater priority placed on the development and practice application of trauma-informed education for all students (Berger & Reupert, 2020).

This paper will focus on how two schools (a secondary school in Australia and a primary school in the Republic of Ireland) have led professional learning in TIPE and its whole school implementation. The two schools are at different stages of the TIPE journey with one having first implemented TIPE in 2019 while the other is still undertaking the initial TIPE professional learning and starting to implement practices in the classroom, providing an interesting cross-contextual insight.

Teachers often interpret resistant student behaviour as a ‘choice’ the student is making to assert themselves in the classroom. However, trauma-informed perspectives prompt teachers to reflect on the impacts of trauma on learning and the underlying causes of student behaviour. TIPE helps to guide school practice so that leaders and teachers understand the impacts of adverse childhood experiences. This then enables leaders and teachers to proactively work towards effective interventions (in learning, behaviour and socially) in the classroom and across the school to embed whole-school strategies to support the learning and growth of their students.

We will draw on interviews and existing school data (student wellbeing and staff surveys) from 2019-2023 for the Australian school and 2021-2023 for the Irish school. We will present insights as to how leaders actively supporting professional learning in TIPE have brought about significant changes to the learning and social environments of the schools. We draw heavily on interviews with the school leaders to fully understand and make sense of their role in this process of research-informed leadership of school change.

While both schools have had similar initial professional learning in TIPE, there have been differences in continued professional learning and TIPE’s implementation in the classroom and school. We will discuss the impact of setting up TIPE teams to collaboratively lead its implementation, the development on whole school non-punitive responses for behaviour management, the development of a TIPE instructional model to guide teachers in their pedagogical practice, and considerations of quality professional learning, including ongoing professional learning and coaching. The approach we describe has led to students reporting increases in connectedness, inclusion and student voice and agency while both teachers and students report increases in effective teaching time and an orderly classroom environment. Based on these observations, we reflect on policy, practice and research implications for TIPE and quality professional education.

This paper explores the strategies employed by German-speaking cantons in Switzerland to redesign their school system in compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. CRPD Article 24 requires signatory states to ensure “an inclusive education system at all levels.” However, Switzerland ratified a slightly different wording in 2014, replacing “inclusive” with “integrative.” This means that children with disabilities in Swiss schools are granted equal access to high-quality and free education in the primary and secondary schools in their community – but not necessarily in the same classrooms.

The research presented aims to identify similarities and differences in the cantonal approaches to the integration of children with ‘special educational needs’ in regular schools and to assess how inclusive these approaches are. This analysis forms part of a larger mixed-methods study on the development and management of integrative schools in Switzerland. It consists of a document analysis examining official programmes, conceptual frameworks, and websites published by the 20 German-speaking cantons that outline their implementation of ‘integrative support’ and ‘integrated special education’. Statements of purpose and reasons given in support of their approach were analysed based on the four understandings of inclusion put forth by Piezunka et al. (2017), and objectives were captured using the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2002). Measures were recorded inductively, and their (planned) implementation was coded as inclusive or segregated, consistent with the terminology laid out by the UN (CRPD General comment No. 4, 2016).

The analysis reveals that compliance with the law and enhanced academic performance are the most frequent reasons given in support of educating children with ‘special educational needs’ in regular schools. Only a small minority of cantons prioritise social participation over academic performance. Objectives focus heavily on cooperation, coordination, and individualised teaching, while broader, less academically focused approaches to inclusivity, such as tackling all forms of discrimination, stigmatisation, and bullying, receive little to no attention. The results show great variety among the 20 cantons, with some striving to provide not just integrated support within the school but inclusive, needs-based support in the classroom. However, all cantons still maintain at least some measures of temporary segregation and thus fall short of providing a fully inclusive classroom setting that is equally accessible to all.

The findings can inform the political debate surrounding special education and highlight areas in which the professional education of teachers, head teachers, and school administrators can be adapted to promote not only integration but also diversity, belonging, and inclusion. The study sheds light on the manifold approaches to integrated education in Switzerland and identifies cantons whose strategy reaches beyond the legally required minimum. If successful, they might serve as models to help Switzerland fulfil its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and ensure that all children have an equal opportunity to learn alongside their peers, be part of their local community, and grow up to fully participate in society.