**3. School improvement inclusion model**

This school improvement model was developed to insure a conceptual framework, which could be employed to create inclusive schools. An important aim in the development of this inclusion model was to build a meaningful partnership between districts and universities. Researchers worked collaboratively with school personnel and the larger community in two urban school districts in South Texas. The school improvement values the importance of both research and practical application with regard to school inclusion. Based on the early findings, researchers developed an inclusion survey to measure how responsive schools were in responding to their changing demographics. Survey results and talking with school administrators led to the type of interventions needed to enhance school inclusiveness.

Using the inclusion model along with an emphasis on Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) guidelines, researchers developed a school improvement model. The district who we used to validate the inclusion scale was asked to participate in the school improvement project. This district's demographics had changed dramatically over

the past 5 years. Thus given the focus of the study we collaborated with the district to identify which schools would be included in the research project. The research team worked with eight schools during the intervention phase for 3 years. Each year of the grant, the team worked on specific areas.

These are the student demographics of the schools we worked during this study. TEA (Texas Educational School A (South San Antonio Independent School District (ISD)) numbers reflect a 2013–14 dropout rate at 15.6%, while both school districts reflected 20% or higher economically disadvantaged populations [19]. School enrollment projections according to National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data reflect an increase in current and projected minority enrollment. Additionally, English Language Learners (ELLs) comprise 16% of each school's population with an average of 17% or higher than state percentages of at-risk populations (cf., Texas at-risk, 59%, [19]).

Evaluation of this school improvement model included both formative and summative assessments. The process of evaluation included multiple measures. A school survey was developed to measure the degree of responsiveness in responding to students' needs. The survey was sent each year to teachers, leaders, parents, and students to both treatment and nontreatment schools. Specific interventions were implemented in the treatment schools which included parent engagement strategies, culturally competent strategies and identification of equity variables were shared with leaders, and strategies to improve college and career readiness. The model wanted to emphasize authentic engagement relationships with the district and schools. Finally, the intent was to build capacity in schools to insure sustainability once the model was fully implemented.

The primary goal of this project was to develop an exploratory school improvement model. The intent was to improve school outcomes related to inequities in the schools. The evaluations involved both formative and summative evaluations. The formative evaluation was to gather information from stakeholders (i.e., teachers, leaders, students, and parents) on their perceptions of school inclusiveness as well as feedback on the professional development workshops. The School Inclusion Survey (SIS) for teachers, leaders, and parents was administered yearly. For the second year of the grant, an inclusion survey for students was validated using inclusion measures based on students' perceptions.

In the last year of the project, one of the researchers reframed the survey to insure the survey was more "student friendly." Formative data helped researchers to identify leadership skills needed in leading demographically diverse schools. We validated the quality of the principals' leadership using interview responses from parents and students. For the summative evaluation, district data were analyzed to determine if there was a difference between the Kellogg and non-Kellogg Schools in terms of teacher and student outcomes. Because of the high number of teacher absences in these schools, it was measured each year. The collection of student outcomes included attendance, suspension, achievement, and career and college readiness. The results of the formative evaluation were to improve the school inclusion model and identify areas for future development [20].

Surveys were used to determine areas of professional development along with integrating ESSA guidelines. These included parent engagement, college and career readiness, and literacy. In addition to the professional development workshops offered to the eight intervention schools every summer and during the year, the research team also met with the leadership team of each school every month for structured and sustained follow-up activities. During the follow-up meetings, the research team assisted principals on interpreting survey results and used data to

#### *School Improvement Inclusion Model for Schools with Changing Demographics: The Impact... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113114*

address areas of their schools' changing demographics. Goals were set in response to teacher, parent, and student concerns. We also kept schools accountable to insure the sustainability of the project.

The research team believed that developing parent engagement should be the primary focus. If you increase parent engagement, it would insure sustainability and build collaborative relationships with the school community. Specifically, the schools worked with parents to provide them guidance on the process of moving from elementary to middle and from middle to high schools. The focus on literacy also was critical with involving parents in reading to their children. Major changes were made to the literacy curriculum because of the interactions with district-level administrators.

We used the School Inclusion Survey (SIS) developed by the research team to gauge teachers' and leaders' perceptions of how their schools responded to their student changing demographics. The survey consists of three main scales: Organizational Leadership, Organizational Justice, and Organizational Outcome. Within each main scale, there are several subscales reflecting the multiple dimensions of each construct [20].

To assess parents' perception of school inclusiveness, we developed the School Inclusion Survey—Parent Version that covers the same three main aspects as in the teacher and leader survey. Version 1.0 of the survey was administered to all parents in the district in the summer of 2019. Based on the feedback from parents and the examinations of the psychometric properties of the survey, we revised some items and updated the survey to version 2.0, which was administered to parents in May 2020. The parent survey has an English and a Spanish version, and consists of three subscales: inclusiveness, positive relationship, and fairness.

The team developed a process called Empathy mapping, which is a simple way to increase the number of parents in giving feedback to schools. Using empathy mapping along with interviewing parents allowed the research team to gather important feedback from parents. The data were collected and analyzed using a qualitative thematic analysis approach. The results of the analysis primarily focused on safety and security, sense of care and belonging, and accessibility to resources. Empathy mapping exercises assisted with adjustments to the campus improvement plan and introduced new goals during the project. It is important to note that qualitative interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish.
