Case study of the practices positively impacting culture and sustained student academic achievement on an elementary campus

The purpose of this case study was to examine the practices and culture applied on an elementary campus as part of an academic turnaround that was sustained for at least one consecutive academic year. The Effective Schools Framework used in Texas to improve the campus academically and the four frames of leadership concepts were applied as an integrated conceptual framework for examining how the case study’s principal sustained the academic improvement beyond the first year of turnaround. There were three research questions: (a) What practices and culture are applied on an elementary campus as part of academic turnaround by the school principal? (b) What practices and culture are applied on an elementary campus as part of academic turnaround by the teachers, particularly by the teachers of the tested subjects? (c) What practices and culture are applied on an elementary campus as part of academic turnaround to build turnaround sustainability? The case focused on one urban elementary school with a diverse student population that underperformed on standardized academic performance measures. The elementary campus improved from a D state accountability rating and sustained a C rating for 2 consecutive rating years. The principal and the participating teachers of the one-on-one interviews had been working at the school with the principal during the first turnaround years and sustained their employment on campus. The principal participated in two interviews. Five teachers of STAAR testing grade levels and whose students took the STAAR test during the turnaround year were interviewed individually. Teachers of any grade during the turnaround or sustained academic years participated in a focus group. Data were analyzed using NVivo software and the following themes emerged: (a) principal set expectations and goals; (b) principal created specific planning structures; (c) strategic staffing by the principal; (d) structured planning process within professional learning communities (PLC); (e) collaborative work beyond the PLC structure; (f) flexible grouping among classrooms and grade levels; (g) consistency of staff, expectations, and campus systems; (h) fear of backsliding on academic progress; and (i) reflective planning.