Headwinds and tailwinds: insights from a research–practice partnership on identifying high-impact growth areas for school improvement Open Access

Research–Practice Partnerships (RPPs) have gained prominence as a strategic approach to address complex challenges in K-12 education. This approach positions educational practitioners as equal partners working alongside researchers in sustained inquiry to address urgent problems of practice (e.g. Coburn and Penuel, 2016; Coburn et al., 2021). RPPs aim to build capacity to analyze and address the specific and situated challenges. These partnerships address the longstanding gap between researchers and practitioners by attempting to make research timely and relevant to local decisions.

Emerging research on RPPs indicate promising results (Coburn and Penuel, 2016; Cooper et al., 2020; Park et al., 2013). For example, collaboration between researchers and practitioners have been found to promote better-informed evidence and data-based decisions in school improvement efforts (Hatch, 1998; Schildkamp, 2019). Additional findings show that practitioners in these partnerships become more critical about and responsible for the role of theory and data in their decision-making (Earl and Katz, 2006; Lockton et al., 2020; Wohlstetter et al., 2008). As the world grapples with how to address inequities flamed by the COVID-19 pandemic, these dynamic partnerships between researchers and practitioners can drive learning ecosystems in which both sectors work collaboratively to address today’s educational challenges (Díaz-Gibson et al., 2017; Hopkins et al., 2019). However, research show that RPPs can be challenged by the complexity of different perspectives between sectors (Hopkins et al., 2019), reinventing data use (Schildkamp and Datnow, 2022) and adaptivity and flexibility of partners (Johnson et al., 2016) that need to be overcome in order to build a sustainable learning ecosystem.

The current mixed-methods case study examines the emergence of a learning ecosystem through an RPP focused on school culture, climate, relationships and learner-centered instruction. This mixed-methods case study is guided by three primary research questions: (1) How do school principals and researchers in an RPP collaborate to identify high-leverage areas for school improvement? (2) What are the social processes within the RPP that facilitate mutual learning between research and practice partners? (3) How does the RPP evolve into a learning ecosystem that supports continuous school improvement? In addressing the research questions, this study explores how an RPP fosters a learning ecosystem that empowers school leaders in setting strategic priorities and making informed leadership decisions, particularly in the complex environment of school improvement. The study specifically centers on the perspectives of participating school principals, who serve as key intermediaries between district initiatives and school-level practice. The RPP approach provided the opportunity to discover and address different perspectives between research findings and principals’ ideas on high-leverage areas for improvement. This research responds to the growing urgency to understand the complexities and strategies used by educators to enhance equity. By focusing on research-informed measures of critical elements such as culture and climate, this study contributes to the broader goal of developing equity-centered school improvement strategies through the work of RPP.

The concept of learning ecosystems has recently gained traction in educational research and emphasizes the importance of systemic and relational components in fostering school improvement (Díaz-Gibson et al., 2017). However, its research base remains underdeveloped, particularly in the context of RPPs. The concept of learning ecosystems is closely connected to the idea of organizational culture and climate (Hopkins et al., 2019; Lockton et al., 2020) and organizational learning (Collinson and Cook, 2007; Louis, 2022) because both organizational culture and climate shape the environment in which learning occurs, influencing the behaviors, attitudes and interactions of those within the system. Organizational learning processes, in turn, help schools adapt and evolve by facilitating the continuous flow and integration of knowledge (Argyris and Schön, 1997; Collinson and Cook, 2007; Louis, 2022). The notion of a learning ecosystem brings a more specific focus on understanding the systemic and relational components that drive learning and progress within schools. Shifting the unit of analysis away from viewing schools as bureaucratic entities, the learning ecosystem perspective centers localized conditions for learning and the agency of actors to create and transform their own contexts (Wurth et al., 2022). We build on previous research that shows RPPs — partnerships focused on mutual learning and driving educational change — can drive learning ecosystems (Coburn et al., 2021; Hopkins et al., 2019). RPPs, therefore, offer a unique opportunity to examine the conditions that support learning and improvement.

Viewing an RPP as a potential driver of a learning ecosystem emphasizes the dynamic social and relational processes through which researchers and practitioners co-create and apply new knowledge for improvement. RPPs operate on the assumption that building relationships and attending to social processes enhances the capacity for mutual learning, creating knowledge-rich ecosystems that support continuous transformation and reform (Farrell and Coburn, 2017; Farell et al., 2019). Previous research has identified several partnerships that have been successful in supporting practitioners to critically engage with theory and data when making decisions about educational change (Earl and Katz, 2006; Lockton et al., 2020; Wohlstetter et al., 2008). Conditional to such an effective RPP is that partnerships focus on developing relational capacity for knowledge exchange and development, fostering a climate that encourages experimentation, understanding the nature of collaboration and establishing processes for reflection and turning consensus into action (Edmondson, 2002; Farrell et al., 2019; Pisano et al., 2001).

Building a learning ecosystem through an RPP involves being attentive to the challenges that arise in collaboration between sectors (Johnson et al., 2016). Common tensions in RPPs include differing conceptions of core ideas, which can hinder communication and progress (Farrell et al., 2022), competing priorities between researchers and practitioners (Welsh, 2021) and the politicization of educational change efforts (Coburn and Penuel, 2016). In addition, researchers may face challenges in making data relevant and actionable within specific contexts, and in aligning research findings with local data, the historical background of a system and the specific needs of practice (Vanlommel and van den Boom-Muilenberg, 2024).

Given the critical role of collaboration in both producing and utilizing knowledge within educational organizations, RPPs have the potential to help leaders and practitioners explore and engage with differences between research and other forms of information as a means of interpersonal problem-solving. Actively seeking out and understanding inconsistencies through collaborative efforts can lead to the disclosure, examination and development of new beliefs (Mumford et al., 2007; Robinson et al., 2020). At the same time, leaders may sometimes avoid engaging in critical dialogues due to a fear of harming relationships. This avoidance can lead to bypassing the exploration of problem causes, advocating more than inquiring and failing to connect solutions logically to the problems they aim to address (Sinnema et al., 2023). In the context of an RPP, the multidirectional process of weighting and validating research insights by both researchers and practitioners can enhance leadership capacity for these interactions while simultaneously building relational trust among partners.

Understanding the conditions for learning, therefore, requires a genuine interest in how partners consider resources, knowledge and new ideas for school improvement (Senge and Sterman, 1992; Argyris and Schön, 1997). This involves questioning the underlying assumptions that guide practice, targeting root causes rather than symptoms (Scribner et al., 1999, p. 134) and developing and sharing new knowledge in ways that lead to commonly held ideas or practices (Collinson and Cook, 2007; Louis, 2022). In essence, successfully bridging research and practice requires a shift from simply implementing external knowledge to embracing the social and relational aspects of organizational improvement (Louis, 2010).

This case study examines how an RPP between an urban fringe school district and its partner university in California-fostered collaboration through a data-driven, research-informed dialogue over five years. The partnership was intentionally organized to engage diverse expertise and perspectives from district and school practitioners, as well as university partners to address pressing problems of practice (Coburn and Penuel, 2016). The specific goal of the RPP was to co-create a process that deepened the understanding of the role of school culture and climate in successful transitions toward learner-centered instruction. Additionally, the efforts were designed to support school principals in their school improvement and transformation initiatives. Beginning in 2018 and continuing through the 13 months during which schools operated entirely through distance learning due to the pandemic, data collection involved annual interviews with school principals, teachers and coaches, as well as online surveys. These surveys measured a variety of research-informed climate variables (see Liou et al., 2021; Liou and Bjorklund, 2023) among a broad group of stakeholders, including students, teachers, parents and classified staff. The research team also developed and introduced leaders to new methods for interpreting and evaluating survey data, including Conditional Mean Independent Correlations (CMIC) and growth functions (van Halem et al., 2023). These analytic tools were designed to help practitioners, leaders and policymakers identify the educational areas with the highest positive association with the other climate variables, providing an empirical basis for prioritizing areas that are most likely to drive significant growth aligned with the district’s mission and vision. The CMIC and growth functions provided a new avenue to surface, examine, weighting and validation of differences in perspectives between research and practice.

The study specifically focuses on the collaboration between researchers and school principals within this RPP due to their delegated authority and roles within and around schools, district and site leaders possess influence and direct access to information at various levels of the organization, positioning them as key players in the change process (Wohlstetter et al., 2008). Despite their crucial role in ensuring the necessary conditions for instruction and learning, such as structuring professional development and providing time for collaboration, research on school principals remains limited compared to studies on teachers (Fotheringham et al., 2021; Grooms and Childs, 2021).

To understand collaboration and mutual learning between researchers and principals within the context of the RPP and the broader district organization, we used case study research (Yin, 2009). In this study, we employ a convergent mixed-methods design with embedded explanatory elements, as data were collected iteratively over the course of the partnership (Creswell and Clark, 2017). Quantitative data were used to detect and measure discrepancies and mutual learning, while qualitative data captured school leaders’ reasoning and experiences to understand the social processes involved in mutual learning and the emerging learning ecosystem.

Over the five years, the RPP engaged in a process of questioning the assumptions that guide practice, developing new knowledge required for solutions and sharing knowledge in a way that builds collective ideas or practices. Participants from both sides of the partnership played equally instrumental roles in co-creating a planning process. This collaborative effort guided the research activities and ensured a shared commitment to the collection and review of longitudinal data and results. This research design is particularly well-suited for dissecting the relevance of the RPP in the context of principals’ complex considerations during improvement efforts. The explanatory approach helps us understand how learning processes take shape among the participants in relation to organizational and societal context.

The study’s RPP took place in a district comprising 11 K-12 schools in an urban fringe community in California. The district’s student population is approximately 65% Asian, 15% Latin or Hispanic, 14% white and 6% representing other or multiple backgrounds. Twenty-six percent of the students qualify for federally-subsidized free and reduced-price meals and approximately 13% are enrolled in the English language learning program. The school district has a reputation for supporting educational innovation initiatives to improve the learning outcomes of students. In recent years, the district focused its efforts on the development and implementation of innovations specifically related to personalizing learning, including the implementation of student-led learning technology, new instructional/curricular initiatives, such as “Leader in Me” and “Universal Design for Learning,” and initiatives to support teacher collaboration and professionalization. These shifts required substantial organizational change within the historical context of a more traditional approach to teaching and learning.

Table 1 presents a timeline of research activities and interactions between researchers and school principals within the RPP.

Survey data. The survey design was based on instruments from the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research that were further modified and validated by the research team to better fit the study context (see Table A1; Liou et al., 2021; Liou and Bjorklund, 2023). In addition, the Student Experiences of Proximity inventory was included in this survey (van Halem, 2022). Each area was measured using multiple-item perceptual scales.  Appendix provides an overview of the included survey areas on culture, climate, relationships and instruction. Cronbach’s alpha levels per scale ranged between 0.70 and 0.92, suggesting that the reliability of the scales is acceptable.

The survey data were collected based on a repeated cross-sectional design which relied on the same group of participants in the district each year, beginning in 2019. This study draws from teacher and student data. Invitations were sent to all teachers, while students were invited from three grade levels. At the beginning of the study, this cohort represented grade levels 3, 6 and 9 and was followed over time. In the early part of 2019, survey data were gathered from a total of 371 teachers and 1622 students, reflecting an 85% and 54% response rate. In the spring of 2020, survey data were gathered from a total of 310 teachers and 1204 students, reflecting a 72% and 40% response rate respectively. In the early part of 2021, survey data were gathered from a total of 257 teachers and 1,123 students, reflecting a 56% and 38% response rate.

Interviews. Starting from the summer of 2019, semi-structured individual principal interviews of all principals (N = 11) were conducted annually. These interviews took place after the reporting back of preliminary data, which happened in the early part of each year. These interviews provided opportunities to delve deeply into the principals’ perspectives on high-leverage areas for improvement and their experiences of improvement initiatives throughout the year.

Document analysis. To further answer the research questions of this study, we examined a variety of documents produced during the study. We included artifacts from a series of data sharing-back meetings (such as PowerPoint and video presentations), the researchers’ notes from all meetings with the district leadership team and school principals and annual staff letters sent out by the district leadership. These data sources were included to shed light on guiding circumstances and insights on high-leverage areas for improvements.

Conditional Mean Independent Correlations (CMIC) and growth functions. The CMIC and growth functions method was developed within this RPP based on the need to broaden strategies to interpret and use the survey data for decision-making and these methods were accordingly used to analyze the student and teacher data. This method consists of two phases: (1) establishing CMIC and (2) applying normative growth functions. The first part deals with generating interdependencies between pairs of improvement areas not driven by observed variation in other areas. This idea draws on statistical matching, however, the current method derives these correlations by using ordinary least square regression to derive these correlations (Angrist and Pischke, 2008). The CMIC serves as input for the second part, the growth functions. These are weight functions which determine the relative priority of growth in the considered areas. The growth functions construe rankings of high-impact improvement areas based on the CMIC. These normative growth functions are based on optimization theory and social welfare functions in welfare economics (Pattanaik, 2008). Growth functions construe rankings of high-impact improvement areas. For the current study, we used the Maximize Growth (MG) decision rule. The objective of the MG decision rule is to increase improvement in outcomes aggregated over all N areas, regardless of potential differences in relative improvement across areas (van Halem et al., 2023). This can be interpreted as a simple “more is better” rule.

This method offers a way to apply a set of empirically grounded decision-making rules to guide improvement efforts. The CMIC and growth functions provide a novel approach to engage school principals with theory and data by being able to actively “scenario build” and test out different sets of possibilities with data derived from their direct context. Using this method with decision-makers can challenge them to reflect deeply on the implicit assumptions that exist in their organizations. The implementation of CMIC and growth functions, therefore, also provides an avenue for research into organizational decision-making processes. In line with the design of the RPP, practically applying CMIC and growth functions to real contexts strives to be mutually beneficial for both partners in the RPP: it provides researchers with opportunities for theory development, and it provides district partners with scientifically grounded evidence for decision-making to generate improvement aligned to their goals. For an elaborate discussion of the method, analysis strategies and its implications, we refer to the paper of van Halem and colleagues (2023).

Additional descriptive analysis. The quantitative data from the surveys were analyzed in STATA software version 16. Differences in survey data over time were analyzed with an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), controlling for years of experience, gender and race and ethnicity to enhance precision. Assumptions of multivariate normality and homogeneity of variances were met.

Interviews and documents were analyzed qualitatively with a combination of a priori and emergent codes by the research partners within the RPP, driven by the partnership objective to derive research-informed measures and the meaning of critical elements such as culture and climate. The a priori codes were derived from the areas that were quantitatively measured through the yearly multiple stakeholder survey (see  Appendix), allowing a comparison between principal’s views and the ranking of domains based on the CMIC and growth functions method. The a priori codes as such aligned with literature on school improvement and the stated missions of the district and partnership. Emergent codes, including those related to the unexpected pandemic, were used to account for and explore unanticipated ideas not captured in the initial codebook (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Members of the research team coded individually using MAXQDA (maxqda.com), noting questions and emergent codes, then met to compare and discuss. This process was repeated until the team reached consistent reliable coding and agreed on the codes and definitions. Data were then reviewed within and across school types, stakeholders and years to find themes pertaining to the research question. Finally, these findings were integrated with the quantitative results with the purpose of explaining the focus and direction of the partnership. Data were analyzed through an iterative process (Yin, 2009); in each situation, findings were matched across data sources as to triangulate and deepen arguments. Initial explanations were used, and data were compared to the explanation. Through this analytic process a refined set of ideas was developed, including the consideration of alternate explanations (Yin, 2009). The RPP meetings were continuously used to member check the findings, as the researchers were working closely together with the district leaders to support their decision-making around change efforts.

Over time, the RPP both revealed and shaped the ways in which principals examined their views and ideas that guided their leadership practices. This section presents the case study results with the aim of describing the emerging data-driven dialogue between researchers and principals about high-leverage areas for school improvement, particularly as the partnership navigated the shifting landscape of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Here, we present the findings from both the CMIC and growth functions method and principals’ views and priorities for improvement efforts and how these evolved (see Table 2). Over the course of the partnership, we observed increased alignment between principals’ priorities and research findings, particularly in recognizing trust as pivotal.

In 2019, the results of the CMIC and growth functions method show that learner control and students’ trust in their educators (principal and teacher trust) had the highest average association with all areas that together make up the student’s school experience. Parallel to the findings in the student survey data, the results show that teacher-student dialogue had the highest overall association with the areas that make up the teacher’s daily experiences in their work (see  Appendix). The findings from the CMIC and growth functions overall show that teacher–student relationship and learner control suggest a potential for influence on the instructional climate and overall school climate.

Principals’ views on high-leverage areas for school improvements in 2019 were gauged with a ranking obtained during the share-back meeting in the winter of 2019 prior to sharing the CMIC and growth functions outcomes. This ranking was derived by asking each site administrator to individually send in the top three highest impact improvements. Principals picked the top three highest impact improvement based on the list of climate variables included in the student survey. The resulting ranking from all responses revealed that culture and climate, students’ sense of belonging and relevancy of schoolwork were considered the highest leverage areas for school improvement initiatives. Educator trust, peer interactions and the use of mobile devices received a low rank. To a large extent, the CMIC and growth functions method outcomes in the first year of the RPP corroborated principals’ views. There was, however, a discrepancy between principal views and the findings from the CMIC and growth functions around the climate variable “Trust.” This variable was ranked seventh by principals and second in the CMIC and growth functions-based ranking.

In 2020 and 2021, the results of the CMIC and growth functions method based on the student and teacher data remain relatively unchanged compared to 2019. In the student data, the results indicated that areas such as educator trust and teacher–student dialogue remained high-leverage areas. Students’ sense of belonging climbed in its ranking. When comparing these high-leverage domains with principals’ expressed priorities, we observed increasing alignment over time between their views and the research findings. This was particularly true with respect to trust as a high-leverage area for school improvement, in which principals ranked seventh in the first year (out of nine areas), and first in the two years thereafter.

The outcomes of the CMIC and growth functions method as well as the discrepancy with principal views in 2019 catalyzed the gradual learning process within the RPP and were addressed in the following meetings. The outcomes of the CMIC and growth functions in relation to principals’ views encouraged both the researchers and leaders in this partnership to emphasize trust even more. For example, during the one-on-one principal coaching sessions in 2021, a principal shared: “I sat with the students because of my trust data from last year.” Another principal talked about efforts to increase a sense of agency during staff collaboration time in the previous school year, to increase collegial trust in the school. As the researchers became more aware of the importance of these relational components in the district context, they decided along with practitioners to engage in additional social network data collection and sharing network visualizations back with teachers and principals from 2021 onward to further support their efforts in strengthening collegial trust.

The renewed focus on the importance of the quality of relationships appears to have been successful, as we observed growth in the levels of trust among several stakeholder groups in the district over time. Survey data showed significant increases in the level of trust among principals (M₂₀₁₉ = 4.92, SD₂₀₁₉ = 0.59, M₂₀₂₁ = 5.48, SD₂₀₂₁ = 0.53), significant increases in teachers’ trust in the principal (M₂₀₁₉ = 4.92, SD₂₀₁₉ = 1.28, M₂₀₂₁ = 5.22, SD₂₀₂₁ = 1.05) and significant increases in parents’ trust in the principal (M₂₀₁₉ = 4.87, SD₂₀₁₉ = 1.05, M₂₀₂₁ = 5.02, SD₂₀₂₁ = 0.97). Students’ level of trust in their principal and teachers remained unchanged.

Within the RPP, a two-way communication about high-leverage areas for school improvements emerged in which research and practitioner partners interpreted and integrated insights. The yearly interviews and data coaching sessions provided an opportunity to build trust and a space for principals to reflect on high-leverage areas for school improvement. The yearly share-back activities were a way to analyze the role of culture, climate, relationships and learner-centered instruction at their schools. Simultaneously, the principals’ reflections sensitized the research team to guiding circumstances and motivated them to tailor investigative methods and share-back practices to the principals’ needs (e.g. by collecting teacher social network data or participating in community engagement nights). The following fragment of the superintendent’s staff letter in September 2019 illustrates how this was perceived by the leadership team:

Each year, principals leveraged the dialogical spaces through the data sharing event to deeply examine their data with researchers and gain insights. For example, one school leader noted:

Another principal shared that through this process, “we are provided with opportunities to co-create and learn together.” When principals reported back on their successes and next steps, principals often referred to the survey data researchers provided them with in personalized school reports, indicating the utility of the partnership. The conversation between researchers and principals about the importance of relationships furthermore generated enthusiasm around additional data collection efforts, such as teacher social network data, yielding higher response rates from teacher teams. Despite our initial prediction that the pandemic would dampen contact between the district and the research team, instead, our practitioner partners leaned into the data we provided – specifically the themes from teacher and principal interviews and the year comparisons based on the survey data – to gain insights into ongoing culture and climate.

Over the five years, the RPP evolved into a driver of a learning ecosystem aimed at supporting continuous school improvement. Key findings about how the RPP supported school improvement are shared in this section. A prevailing theme across data collected at the start of the partnership centered around the opening up of space for innovation ^[1]. This was described by district leaders as a transition to a consistent “yes” toward new ideas developed by leaders and outside experts, a significant contrast with the perceived experience of rules and constraints around initiatives in previous years. With this new enthusiasm for experimentation, the district focused on providing opportunities for educators to try out new ideas, methods and initiatives. At the start of the RPP, leaders reported a “peak” in the number of initiatives, expressing both enthusiasm and concern about this approach to innovation. However, in response to qualitative data shared by the researchers, which revealed that educators were feeling overwhelmed, leaders shifted their tactics to support coherence around a few guiding principles instead of multiple disjointed initiatives. One principal explained that:

This leader shared how they simplified the narrative of change to make it manageable, yet impactful, for their teachers.

In addition, principals described a focus on strengthening their relationships with teachers rather than relying on traditional approaches to teacher buy-in. This enabled them to foster a shift to personalized instruction at a pace that worked for teachers and was driven by teacher agency. One leader explained that they “certainly need to have it where the teachers feel like they’re part of the process and kind of feel like what they’re learning is valuable,” suggesting that the work would be driven by teachers rather than done to them. Another leader described their work at their site as:

The celebration and sharing of existing teacher practices in RPP shareback activities, as well as the concerns that principals raised about teachers feeling overwhelmed, helped engage the shift toward personalized learning that was grounded in a praxis of support rather than critique. This was further evidenced by a consistent focus of principals on promoting collaboration and providing resources, structures and processes to maximize teachers’ change agency and relational trust in the process of innovating.

The events of 2020 – including the pandemic, school closures and the American reckoning with systemic racism brought to the fore by the Black Lives Matter Movement – further stimulated the work around innovation. Although district and school principals initially reported that they would scale back on their innovative initiatives during the transition to distance learning, the continuation of the RPP allowed the collection of data that revealed that educators actually drew more heavily on their learning from these pre-pandemic initiatives. One principal noted, “I have never seen teachers work harder in my life. It is heartbreaking and exciting at the same time.” They observed that despite the personal and professional strain placed on educators during this time, they leaned further into practices oriented towards personalized learning. Principals’ 2019 dedication to collaboration and inquiry around resources, structures and processes to support teacher agency for innovation became even more pronounced in 2020. As one principal noted in the one-on-one coaching meetings in 2021: “I was pleased that there weren’t any huge drops because of the pandemic. […] It credits the schools, teachers on an emergency school plan.” This demonstrated the enhanced value of relevant and contextualized data for educational leaders during turbulent times. Despite the turbulence, insecurity and stress principals experienced, both research and practice partners indicated feeling motivated rather than paralyzed.

Moving forward from the events of 2020, principals identified ways that the pandemic had amplified the importance of relationships in their work as leaders. For them, this involved fostering teacher agency, trust and professional community by highlighting the innovative strategies that are already applied in the classroom, increasing opportunities for professional growth and integrating teachers into the larger vision of innovation. Principals acknowledged their role in providing time and in facilitating access to resources required for deep teacher learning to occur. They highlighted giving teachers “a chance to sit down and reflect” while also thinking about “ways to make their lives easier,” in line with the purpose of and activities within the RPP.

During the return to in-person instruction, principals expressed a strong desire to hold on to the lessons learned from the pandemic, especially when dealing with trauma among staff and students. Principals maintained their focus on the importance of relationships, in part in reaction to the ongoing inquiry that took place around the survey data on trust and relationships in the district and the outcomes of the CMIC and growth functions method. As one site leader described it:

This principal recognized a need to deepen the work that they had been doing to support teacher agency, which was further discussed during the leadership share-back meetings focused around sharing back themes from teacher interviews. We observed that at that point in time principals across the district emphasized empathy, generosity and attention to social-emotional wellbeing. The principals also expressed a fear that it will be challenging to hold on to the streamlined, responsive culture and climate that was built before the pandemic. One noted a hope “… to not slip back into the mindset of ‘more is better,’ but to stay in the mindset of ‘I need to think about how what I’m asking students to do impacts their whole life.’”

In agreement with the main finding based on the 2021 survey and in line with the conversations that took place during RPP meetings afterwards, principals saw community building as a key high-impact area to process the stressful and traumatic events students experienced during the pandemic shortly after the school closures. They felt that the pandemic increased the level of vulnerability among students and thus committed to continue to engage in the restorative practices they had implemented before the closures. Additionally, communication and care for parents and the broader community came out as ways in which principals aimed to focus on community building. Principals maintained the view that school improvement initiatives could be catalyzed through trusting relationships, community building and community involvement in the service of students’ sense of belonging.

This case study demonstrated that an RPP-driven learning ecosystem can both reveal and shape the ways in which principals examine their views and ideas that guide their leadership practices. Building reciprocal and trusting relationships between researchers and practitioners were instrumental to the RPP. This promoted an increasing sense of agency among school principals in using survey data reports and the social network visualizations from the RPP to analyze ongoing culture and climate, particularly during the pandemic. The RPP approach also provided researchers with avenues to contextualize their methods, opportunities for data collection and reflection on the role of research evidence in making real-world change and two-way dialogue with leaders for ongoing improvement work.

This study shows that growing an RPP-driven learning ecosystem includes being sensitive to differences between the perspectives of researchers and practitioners (Johnson et al., 2016; Schildkamp and Datnow, 2022). By providing principals with the opportunity to participate in and engage in the research process, they become more willing to use this information as an underpinning for their leadership practices. This finding is specifically relevant to promote a productive discussion of problem causes, also referred to as problem-solving conversations (Sinnema et al., 2023) and it underscores the importance of mutual exchange in these dialogues. In the RPP, data were not “handed off” to principals for independent meaning-making but were instead explored side-by-side with the researchers. Through the shared processes within the RPP, researchers were able to not only weigh and validate their research findings but also connect their findings with improvement work which may further inform the design of high-impact research. In other words, these collaborative share-back processes helped create the conditions for mutual learning between RPP partners.

A limitation of the current study is that the response rate among students in 2020 and 2021 decreased somewhat, limiting the generalization of the findings, possibly due to the challenges of the pandemic. Moving forward in the RPP, researchers will continue to focus on building trust and relationships with the broader community to bolster participation in data collection efforts.

Future research in the applications of the CMIC and growth functions in district-level RPPs is recommended. This method can be used to put into question assumptions about how educators approach school improvement efforts, as many decision-makers draw on experience, anecdote or from trusted others (Finnigan and Daly, 2012) rather than concrete, situated data. The CMIC and growth functions methodology can be adapted to incorporate leaders’ perspectives on what desirable growth may be. For example, this may include a preference to effectuate the highest possible growth in all areas, a preference to improve certain areas more than others or a preference to improve weaker areas first (van Halem et al., 2023). The role of an ongoing RPP is important here as it creates the space to test out these assumptions and address the limitations of hearsay.

The lessons learned from this partnership provide valuable insights for addressing educational inequalities exacerbated by the pandemic. There continues to be a great need to measure critical elements such as culture and climate (Lee and Louis, 2019). High-quality quantitative and qualitative data served as evidence-based anchors for practitioner decision-making during chaotic times and continue to be of service to them as they address a new frontier in the post-pandemic reality. The findings underscore a need to recalibrate educational policy and leadership, emphasizing a shift toward prioritizing the quality of relationships, embracing relational methodologies for advancement and reform and thriving ecosystems for learning and flourishing. Further, the responsive nature of an RPP modeled on mutual learning, co-design and co-execution allows for nimble pivoting as unexpected challenges arise, reducing guesswork for both practitioners and researchers and ensuring neither needs to venture into the unknown alone.