**4. Students' perceptions of school inclusiveness**

Another area added to the formative evaluation was the development of a student survey. It was critical to recognize the importance of student voice. The research team developed a student inclusion survey, they took items from the school inclusion survey. However when students' responses were returned, it was obvious they did not understand the questions. Thus, the team decided to interview students to get their thoughts personally. After two rounds of pilot testing and revisions, the final version of the survey was administered to students in the 9th to 12th grades in 2020. In addition to the survey data, we obtained data on teacher absence as an indicator of the teacher outcome. To examine the impact of the research program on student outcomes, we retrieved longitudinal data on student achievement (e.g., The State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) reading and math test scores), college and career readiness, chronic absenteeism, and discipline (i.e., in school and out of school suspension rate) from 2017 to 2019.

Due to school closures caused by Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), we only received 52 valid responses to the student survey. Hence, no statistical analyses were conducted on the student data due to the small sample size and low response rate. However, qualitative analysis of focus group discussions revealed that safety and security, sense of care and belonging, and accessibility to resources were issues parents needed to be addressed in the school. Using these data, campus principals who participated in the empathy mapping exercise used this information to revise their campus improvement plan document.

Many high schools similar to the school in this study are contending with a myriad of challenges in how to create inclusive schools for all students. It appears as if administrators and teachers are either underprepared or unwilling to respond to their students' changing demographics. We did share students' qualitative responses with district administrators and principals. At the end of the meeting, school administrators in this district had few solutions to address students' concerns. We also want to note that during the student interviews, students stated how much they enjoyed participating in this project. What the researchers set out to accomplish was to interview those students who had behavior problems and did poorly in school. Much to our chagrin, this was the first opportunity for these students to provide their opinions and perspectives. The students who participated provided an overall perspective of their personal experiences and treatment from administrators and teachers at their respective campuses [21].

Student voice matters in relation to achievement disparities and treatment of diverse racial, linguistic, and socioeconomic groups. The study's general aim was to capture these students' perceptions concerning the fairness and responsiveness of their school environment. Students' responses from this study fall in line with previous research that belonging is a catalyst to building a community [22]. It was evident that in High School B, Administrators did not demonstrate behaviors that conveyed a sense of belonging to students. While principals in High School A were building a sense of belonging, it was geared more to the others and not Hispanic students. In short, not connecting with students through a sense of care and a sense of belonging explained how these students felt. Researchers set out to connect with students and their experiences in their schools. Students' responses made us rethink about the ways we interact with these students.

While K-12 school leaders appear resistant to change, it is more about making leaders culturally competent and have the ability to adapt as the school demographics change [7]. As schools remain indifferent, it results in more racial tension and cultural marginalization for students of color [16, 23, 24]. Even within the Latinx community, diversity exists. Remaining stagnant and uninformed about the changes within seemingly homogeneous groups is a treacherous practice.

As previously noted, little research exists on student voice in schools undergoing a change in their student population. This study revealed the importance of listening to students and responding to their concerns. Findings indicated schools are often unwilling to collaborate and coordinate with students [21]. This approach is particularly important in populations with high mobility and high percentages of low socioeconomic populations.

The administrators' and teachers' goals and training must make efforts of managing the needs of their diverse students. In the day-to-day practices of school leaders and teachers, students' voices are needed in the decision-making for change. Changes to address inequities in schools must be purposeful with a focus on continually monitoring and addressing areas of concerns. Lastly, to be an inclusive school we need to give incentives to those who deliberately and purposefully work to make schools inclusive.

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


#### **Table 1.**

*Evaluations of the summer workshops.*

The Latinx high school student often faces racial-ethnic stereotypes, which lead to low expectations. Equity and fairness is not possible if there is an uneven distribution and an overreliance on rules, which prejudice a target group [21]. For there to be an equitable school environment, students must perceive fairness in how discipline rules are applied and feel appreciated for their ability to transcend their social and emotional conditions [21].

Professional development workshops were provided to the four schools every summer from 2017 to 2020, covering a specific topic each year. These sessions focused on parent engagement, high school and career readiness, and literacy for ELL students. An evaluation of the 2020 summer workshop was not performed due to COVID-19. We did continue working online with the schools and used Jimmy Cassas' work on building school culture. Each school selected a group of participants consisting of teachers, leaders, and parents to attend the workshops. Participants completed a short survey to provide feedback about the workshops. **Table 1** shows the number of participants for each year's workshop and the average evaluation scores on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree).

## **5. Changes in teachers' perceptions of school inclusiveness**

We hypothesized that our intervention will have an impact on teachers' perceptions of school inclusiveness in the following seven aspects measured by the SIS: inclusive instruction, workplace satisfaction, cross-culture comfort, diversity and inclusion, cultural competence, responsive school image, and positive relationship among groups. **Table 2** shows the average teacher survey scores on a 6-point Likert scale in the control and treatment conditions from 2017 to 2020, respectively.

The descriptive statistics showed that certain subscales in the treatment group had most improvement over time in the subscales for workplace satisfaction (8%), crosscultural comfort (9%), and cultural competency (8.4%). Other subscales in the treatment reflected positive trends under subscales for responsive (school) image (7.6%), diversity and inclusion (7.2%), (building) positive relationships (7%), and inclusive instruction (5.4%). Conversely, control group subscales demonstrated diminishing trends over time across all subscales.

Using the more advanced statistical technique Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) to test the statistical significance of the effects, we also accounted for



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


*Note: Subscale: (1) fairness and justice; (2) inclusive instruction; (3) workplace satisfaction; (4) cultural comfort; (5) diversity and inclusion; (6) cultural competence; (7) school image; (8) positive relationships; (9) adaptive organization*

#### **Table 3.**

*Campus means among teacher responses.*

clustering effects in the data. We discovered that teachers in the intervention group perceived greater workplace satisfaction (b = 0.21, p = 0.036, effect size = 0.22) and more positive relationships among groups (b = 0.149, p = 0.047, effect size = 0.20) in 2018 compared to the baseline year (i.e., 2017). Teachers in the control group did not report any changes in those areas. In addition, teachers in the intervention group perceived that their schools were better in creating a responsive image in both 2018 (b = 0.20, p = 0.006, effect size = 0.28) and 2020 (b = 0.23, p = 0.006, effect size = 0.32) compared to the baseline while teachers in the control group did not perceive any changes in their schools.

A review of the findings on teachers' perceptions on inclusion indicated that teachers in the treatment schools had greater job satisfaction than their counterparts. Teachers in the treatment group believed their schools were perceived as responsive to their students' changing demographics than the other teachers. Further thoughts reveal that the inclusion survey provides insights on how teachers envision their school as being more responsive to their students and parents.

## **6. Means across school campuses**

Highlighting school campus responses, the researchers noted shifts in subscale means over time and higher outcomes in a few subscale mean scores than others (see **Table 3**). Particular trends demonstrated higher outcomes in the means for building positive relationships among groups across treatment campuses, with the exception of the two middle school campuses whose mean scores remained second highest after their diversity and inclusion subscale score. This indicates that at the

## **7. Changes in leaders' perceptions of school inclusiveness**

We hypothesized that our intervention influenced leaders' perceptions of school inclusiveness in the same seven areas as measured by the SIS. **Table 4** shows the average leaders' survey scores in the control and treatment conditions from 2017 to 2020.



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

A similar statistical analysis1 of the trend over the 4 years revealed that leaders in the intervention group perceived greater workplace satisfaction in both 2018 (b = 0.95, p = 0.001, effect size = 1.42) and 2020 (b = 0.52, p = 0.073, effect size = 0.78) compared to the baseline year (2017). In comparison, leaders in the control group did not perceive any changes in workplace satisfaction. In 2018, leaders in the treatment condition perceived improvement in terms of taking diversity and inclusion into consideration on policy-related issues compared to the baseline year (b = 0.36, p = 0.054, effect size = 0.95). Yet, leaders in the control group did not report any changes. In 2020, leaders in the treatment condition perceived that their schools were better in creating a responsive image (b = 0.34, p = 0.066, effect size = 0.77) and developing adaptive school structures (b = 0.47, p = 0.053, effect size = 0.54) compared to the baseline. It is important to note that leaders in the control group did not perceive any changes in their schools. We were pleased that after working with leaders from the treatment schools, there were positive outcomes in their leadership behavior.

Comparing the perspectives of teachers and leaders in the treatment condition, we found that they were consistent. Both teachers and leaders reported significant improvements in terms of workplace satisfaction and creating a responsive image. Both areas of workplace satisfaction and being perceived as a responsive school were critical steps in creating inclusive schools. As mentioned previously, it is important to note that teachers and leaders in nontreatment schools saw little or no change in their cultural competence. Interestingly, only teachers perceived improvement in positive relationships among groups, whereas only leaders reported improvement in developing adaptive school structures.
