School Improvement Inclusion Model for Schools with Changing Demographics: The Impact of Changing Demographics in Schools

Abstract

By 2026, students of color will make up 54% of the school population. The increase of demographically diverse students in our schools requires us to reflect on how we are serving these students, as they enter the doors of our schools. This chapter provides an overview about the implementation of a school inclusion model. The model was based on a wide array of strategies which focused on engaging demographically diverse parents, culturally competent training for school leaders, analyzing school equity data, implemented postsecondary strategies at the elementary and middle schools. An important finding was the 4% drop in teacher absences at the treatment schools. Both teachers and leaders reported significant improvements in terms of workplace satisfaction and positive feelings about their schools. A review of the findings on teachers’ perceptions about inclusion indicated that teachers in the treatment schools had greater job satisfaction than their counterparts. Finally, the accomplishments of this model require more research to insure its viability and its generalizability to schools.

1. Introduction

The demographic student composition in many schools continues to change. Cultural differences between teachers and students are often discernible in both student and school outcomes. In schools with changing student demographics, there are higher number of students of color expelled or suspended. There are also noticeable indicators resulting in low graduation rates and lesser numbers of students of color in advanced math, science, and gifted courses. With the increasing numbers of students of color in schools, it requires us to reflect on how are we serving these students’ needs and how are we making them feel as they enter the doors of our schools.

By 2026, students of color will make up 54% of the school population. It is not clear if the projections for teacher and principal demographics will reflect the same ethnicity and culture as the students. Major shifts in student populations are a forerunner of what is to come for public schools [1, 2]. This growth indicates an increase of Latinx population and Asian-Americans [1]. In the fall of 2019, for the first time, the overall number of Asian, Latinx, and African-American students will exceed the number of White students [2]. As students of color enter the school door, there is a feeling of uneasiness that teachers and leaders are unprepared to address the cultural and language differences of their students [3].

By the time, students of color come to school, many of them have experienced poverty, domestic abuse, and a fear of food insecurity [4, 5, 6]. These students face incredible odds as they begin their educational experience. Because of language barriers, these students may not finish high school or attend postsecondary schooling. As students begin their educational journey, schools will need to assume responsibility for understanding the educational, cultural, and social needs of students of color [7]. Thus, as these demographics continue to change, what solutions are available to assist schools in addressing their changing student demographics?

As more families of color settle into communities that have historically been white, many schools are confronting the reality that the old ways of doing things may not work. Thus, as schools become more demographically diverse, there is a critical need to attract and retain teachers of color. Consequently, conflict may occur between teachers of color and majority teachers because of differences in instructional approaches. Bell’s [8] study unearthed the many disagreements between teachers of color and majority teachers. These arguments focused on differences over instructional practices, discipline, and the degree of multicultural emphasis. Additionally, Achinstein’s [9] research revealed that demographically diverse groups of teachers clashed over professional ideology, which resulted in teachers not trusting each other.

2. Inclusion models for schools with changing student demographics

In response to the changing demographics, there have been solutions, which appear piecemeal and segregated. Schools in efforts to respond to demographic change in the organization have largely turned to diversity management strategies. These efforts have focused on educating a workforce about culture, promoting family friendly policies, and recruiting a diverse workforce [10]. In some situations, diversity management strategies have actually created more tensions, because people form opinions about diverse employees [11]. Diversity management involves educating the workforce about the importance of diversity and attempts to minimize disruptions to the organization [12]

Due to the challenges in implementing diversity management strategies, it has been argued that these efforts should be broader and more inclusive [11]. Thus, inclusion models should stress varying aspects of inequities from an organizational lens. In the following paragraphs, various models of inclusion are presented. Each model is unique. One inclusion model involves the identification of school disparities using an equity audit. Another inclusion model believes it is important for the leader to be culturally competent and be kept accountable for addressing inequities in schools.

For instance, Theoharis’ and Scanlan’s [13] school inclusion model illustrates that by examining school inequities, there will be improved school outcomes. Hayes, Bartle, and Major [14] believe inclusion should be a “climate of opportunity” where equal opportunity, justice, and climate are defined by people’s perception of fairness. Another model is Sabharwal’s [12] Organizational Inclusive Behavior (OIB). The OIB model focuses on multiple aspects of diversity and the importance of inclusive dimensions of performance and leadership. It is believed this model leads to greater inclusion among individuals and focuses more on performance and the important role the leader plays in creating an inclusive environment.

Other school inclusion models focus on equity audits, which function as inventories of school-level data to spot inequities. Audits produce valuable information to measure the degree of fairness and equity in schools for students and employees [15]. These audits examine inequities at the classroom level. (i.e., children of color). Items included within an equity audit might field questions related to giftedness and race, discipline and special education for children of color, sexual orientation, and religion.

Ferdman’s [16] inclusion model is different, as it believes the leader should hold people responsible to insure that organizational policies are fair and equitable. This model centers on the establishment of norms where the group defines what inclusion should look like. Ferdman [16] believes group efforts are pivotal to insure people are accepted and valued. Thus, the group and individuals can seek others’ opinions and collectively reach consensus.

As an extension of diversity management, Booysen [17] believes inclusive leadership should be an extension of diversity management. Consequently, inclusive leadership encompasses more than equity, social justice, and fairness. This type of leadership reveals members of an inclusive organization should be empowered to make decisions to benefit everyone. Leadership has increasingly been included in inclusion models. Gallegos [18] believes leadership theories need to focus on equity, diversity, and social justice. His framework calls for leaders to be more responsive to their followers. Leaders must devoid themselves of possible bias and stereotype beliefs which will influence actions. The differences across these variations on inclusion are mostly subtle, but it is clear each promotes a unique view and approach.

The inclusion model proposed in this chapter has been applied in demographically diverse schools. This model emphasizes the importance of analyzing school data, increasing parent engagement, and improving college and career readiness. It also suggests creating culturally competent leadership strategies to support their demographically diverse students. As student demographics increase over time, there is a critical need to examine how schools construct inclusive school environments.

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 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.

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.

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).

	2017	2018	2019	2020
Number of participants	56	60	63	65
The goals of this workshop were clear.	5.45	5.22	5.58	N/A
The goals of this workshop were met.	5.32	5.09	5.61	N/A
Time was used well.	5.30	5.11	5.60	N/A
I gained many ideas that will help me or my school.	5.37	5.10	5.57	N/A
There were opportunities to share ideas with others.	5.56	5.31	5.48	N/A
Overall, this workshop was worthwhile.	5.38	5.10	5.58	N/A

Table 1.

Evaluations of the summer workshops.

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.

Variables	2017		2018		2019		2020
	Control (n = 471)	Treat (n = 268)	Control (n = 370)	Treat (n = 283)	Control (n = 348)	Treat (n = 265)	Control (n = 367)	Treat (n = 298)
Inclusive instruction	4.66	4.82	4.72	4.82	4.71	4.81	4.88	5.03
Work satisfaction	4.38	4.47	4.51	4.62	4.44	4.48	4.85	4.85
Cross-cultural comfort	4.50	4.67	4.64	4.80	4.58	4.66	4.81	4.91
Diversity and inclusion	4.85	5.02	5.05	5.14	4.90	5.03	5.00	5.20
Cultural competency	4.78	4.89	4.90	5.03	4.82	4.91	4.94	5.18
Responsive image	4.87	4.87	4.95	5.06	4.86	4.94	5.07	5.24
Positive relationship	4.95	5.02	5.02	5.15	4.97	5.07	5.14	5.30

Table 2.

Means of teacher School Inclusion Survey (SIS) scores.

The descriptive statistics showed that certain subscales in the treatment group had most improvement over time in the subscales for workplace satisfaction (8%), cross-cultural 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 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

School	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
Elementary School A	4.72	4.69	4.63	4.52	4.99	4.58	4.96	5.00	4.65
Elementary School B	5.02	5.11	4.78	4.98	5.40	5.28	5.36	5.40	5.08
Elementary School C	4.97	5.07	4.76	4.99	5.02	5.20	5.07	5.24	4.97
Elementary School D	4.88	5.02	4.86	4.95	5.18	5.15	5.25	5.27	4.93
Elementary School E	4.75	4.93	4.40	4.72	5.05	5.09	5.12	5.21	4.85
Middle School A	4.96	5.03	4.85	4.95	5.20	5.04	5.06	5.15	4.93
Middle School B	4.75	4.65	4.36	4.61	5.02	4.93	4.74	4.98	4.71
High School A	4.29	4.30	3.98	4.25	4.80	4.81	4.62	4.91	4.07

Table 3.

Campus means among teacher responses.

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

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.

Variables	2017		2018		2019		2020
	Control (n = 32)	Treat (n = 31)	Control (n = 42)	Treat (n = 29)	Control (n = 39)	Treat (n = 35)	Control (n = 67)	Treat (n = 53)
Inclusive Instruction	4.87	4.63	4.76	4.71	4.66	4.32	4.86	5.06
Work satisfaction	5.05	4.24	4.65	4.75	4.69	4.28	4.93	4.91
Cross-cultural comfort	5.02	4.24	4.72	4.55	4.83	4.39	4.93	4.97
Diversity and inclusion	5.44	5.44	5.17	5.63	5.36	5.59	5.33	5.61
Cultural competency	5.28	5.15	4.94	5.15	4.99	5.01	5.04	5.28
Responsive image	5.22	4.90	5.09	5.05	4.98	4.98	5.00	5.30
Positive relationship	5.49	5.36	5.14	5.38	5.31	5.32	5.25	5.52
Adaptive structure	5.00	4.86	4.69	4.76	4.75	4.70	4.66	5.17

Table 4.

Means of leader School Inclusion Survey (SIS) scores.

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.

8. Parents’ perceptions of school inclusiveness

A total of 619 parents (51.37% in the treatment group and 48.63% in the control group) provided valid responses to the parent SIS administered in May 2020. Controlling for grade levels, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups of parents in any of the three aspects (i.e., inclusiveness, positive relationship, and fairness). However, qualitative analysis of parents’ empathy mapping showed that parents felt their voices diminished calling concern to safety, security, and sense of care and belonging for students and families of diverse backgrounds. The results of the analysis also indicated poor accessibility to information and material resources for parents of limited and non-English-speaking communities. While we were unable to analyze parent surveys, we also conducted qualitative interviews to gather insight on how if they felt welcomed when they entered their schools.

9. Teacher outcomes

Teachers’ chronic absenteeism is defined as missing more than 10 days (5.5%) in a typical 180-day school year. At baseline, 22.90% of teachers in the control group and 25.48% in the intervention group were chronically absent. In 2019, 20.84% of teachers in the control group and 21.29% of teachers in the intervention group were chronically absent. There was a 2.06% drop in the rate of chronic absenteeism in the control condition and a 4.19% drop in the treatment condition. However, the two were not statistically significantly different as indicated by an HLM analysis.

10. Student outcomes

To examine the impact of the school improvement model on student outcomes, we examined whether there are differences between the intervention and the control conditions. These included student chronic absence, suspension, math achievement, reading achievement, and college and career readiness. Because the study uses a quasi-experimental design, there were systematic biases between the students in the intervention condition and those in the control condition. Intervention students were more disadvantaged than the control group. Thus, students in the intervention group dealt with more issues of poverty, language barriers, and parent engagement. Hence, students in the intervention group were more likely to be English language learners (ELLs), less likely to be economically advantaged, and had lower baseline math and reading test scores. To reduce the effect of these biases on the impact estimates, we used propensity score analysis (PSA), in which students were matched on baseline measures of achievement as well as grade levels and demographic characteristics including gender, race, ELL status, special education status, free or reduced lunch eligibility, and gifted program status.

In the last year of the grant, the COVID-19 really influenced the work with students in the treatment group. It is important to note that when we approached the district about participating in the project, the district assigned us the lower performing schools that had a similar feeder pattern. We believe if COVID-19 had not occurred, student outcomes may have improved.

Two sets of PSAs were conducted, one for elementary and middle schools (ESMS) and the other for high schools (HS). In both analyses, the matching successfully reduced biases in covariates to less than 4%. Table 5 shows the results of the ESMS analysis, including sample size, grade levels, average treatment effect (ATE), statistical test results, and robustness. There was one statistically significant negative effect (i.e., chronic absence), one statistically significant positive effect (i.e., Algebra), and three nonsignificant effects (i.e., suspension, math STAAR test scores, and reading STAAR test scores). Specifically, treatment group students were more likely to be chronically absent by 2%. In addition, treatment group students had higher Algebra end-of-course (EOC) scores by 0.11 standard deviations. The robustness parameter measures how robust an estimated impact is against unmeasured confounders. Values closer to 1 indicate less robust effects. The estimated robustness parameters of the two statistically significant effects indicate that both effects were very sensitive to potential confounders.

Outcome	N	Grades	ATT	SE	t	df	p	Robustness
Chronic absence (0/1)	5490	3–8	0.02	0.01	2.19	19	0.04*	Γ = 1.3
Suspended (0/1)	5490	3–8	−0.01	0.01	−1.12	19	0.28
Math STAAR (SD)	2120	3–5	−0.07	0.04	−1.69	16	0.11
Reading STAAR (SD)	2949	3–6	−0.03	0.04	−0.96	17	0.35
Algebra EOC (SD)	811	6	0.11	0.06	1.84	14	0.09+	Γ = 1.1

Table 5.

Impact estimates on student outcomes for elementary and middle schools.

^*

p < 0.05.

⁺

p < 0.1.

The PSA for high schools only matched students on demographic characteristics because one high school in the treatment group did not enroll any students in the first year, thus did not have baseline measures of student achievement, attendance, and suspension. The results (see Table 6) showed one statistically significant positive effect, six statistically significant negative effects, and two nonsignificant effects. The high school results should be interpreted with caution. This was because there was only one high school in the treatment group and only one high school in the control condition. Thus, it was a challenge in separating school effects from the treatment effects. In addition, the lack of baseline measures also made the results less robust.

Outcome	N	Grades	ATT	SE	t	df	p	Robustness
Chronic absence (0/1)	3306	9–11	0.12	0.02	7.18	10	0.00^**	Γ = 1.5
Suspended (0/1)	3306	9–11	0.08	0.02	4.71	10	0.00^**	Γ = 1.4
English EOC (SD)	1570	9–10	−0.11	0.04	−2.81	9	0.02^*	Γ = 1.4
Took CTE Courses (0/1)	2310	9–10	−0.11	0.02	−4.97	9	0.00^**	Γ = 1.2
AP/IB Test participation (0/1)	3306	9–11	0.01	0.01	1.37	10	0.20
Took College-Level Courses (0/1)	2310	9–10	−0.08	0.02	−4.74	9	0.00^**	Γ = 1.7
Completed Career Training & Received Certificate (0/1)	1733	9–10	−0.06	0.02	−2.34	9	0.04^*	Γ = 1.1
Received College Readiness Point (0/1)	1862	9–10	0.06	0.02	2.55	9	0.03^*
High School Graduation (0/1)	996	11	0.01	0.03	0.43	8	0.68

Table 6.

Impact estimates on student outcomes for high schools.

11. Results and application for schools

Most reform efforts in addressing changing demographics are based on awareness training, equity audits, and culturally competent training for school leaders. While each method has noted some success, this inclusion model used multiple strategies. Thus, this research explored the potential of developing a more holistic model to create inclusive schools for all demographic groups. An important element for implementing this model was the development of a survey to measure inclusion. Survey constructs measured the degree of responsiveness to students and parents. Thus, this instrument assessed the principals’ cultural competence, culturally relevant strategies, and fair and equitable treatment for all students. Use of the survey allowed the researchers to measure if this school improvement model was effective in creating inclusive schools. The model was based on a wide array of strategies which focused on engaging demographically diverse parents, culturally competent training for school leaders, analyzing school equity data, implemented postsecondary strategies at the elementary and middle schools.

Interventions were developed to address the model’s three dimensions of outcome awareness, organizational justice and fairness, and leadership capacity. Over a 3-year period, interventions were implemented to address inequities and engage parents. Theoretically, this study provided strategies to use with schools to improve student outcomes. It also included a survey based on inclusion constructs to assess if the schools were truly measuring and addressing inequities in school outcomes. Findings were positive which indicated this model has promise.

Findings conclude that the intervention had a statistically significant positive impact on teachers’ and leaders’ perceptions about creating inclusive schools. The qualitative data corroborated the statistical findings. However, the impact on student outcomes is indeterminate due to mixed effects and confounding factors. Based on the findings from this study, this improvement model has potential to assist schools in addressing a change in their student demographics.