Coby Meyers
University of Virginia
Coby Meyers is the Chief of Research of the Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education (PLE) and Associate Professor of Education in the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia. Dr. Meyers' research focuses on understanding the role of school system leadership, especially in the context of school turnaround. Meyers has also played integral roles in various school turnaround initiatives, an area in which he has presented and published, including co-authoring the book Turning Around Failing Schools: Leadership Lessons from the Organizational Sciences and multiple journal articles. Prior to joining the PLE in 2015, Dr. Meyers was a senior researcher at American Institutes for Research (AIR), where he led beating-the-odds work for REL Midwest and REL Northeast and Islands that focused on identifying schools achieving at higher levels than expected and analyzing organizational factors that might be related to those achievement levels. He was also co-PI of the $2.5 million randomized controlled trial evaluation of the i3 eMINTS Validation Study and is a certified What Works Clearinghouse reviewer. After working as a middle and high school English language arts teacher, Meyers earned his doctoral degree in education leadership, policy, and organizations from Vanderbilt University.
Much of the school turnaround movement has focused singularly on low-performing schools without the consideration of the systems in which they operate (Finnigan & Daly, 2016), but recent shifts in American policy has resulted... [ view full abstract ]
Much of the school turnaround movement has focused singularly on low-performing schools without the consideration of the systems in which they operate (Finnigan & Daly, 2016), but recent shifts in American policy has resulted in increased focus on the district role in supporting, and potentially leading, school turnaround (Center on School Turnaround, 2017). In this study, we conduct case study research of one urban district that prioritized rapidly improving ten of its lowest-performing schools. Specifically, we ask the following research questions:
- In what ways did district leadership strategically facilitate district-wide improvement across turnaround conditions (e.g., leadership, instructional infrastructure, etc.)?
- How has the expectations for and work of Transformation Zone school principals changed during this improvement initiative?
- What barriers impeded the district’s transformation effort, and how or to what extent has the district been successful in overcoming them?
For data collection, we leverage our deep connections with a university-based school turnaround program that provides nearly three years of integrated activity to develop systems leadership in districts. This urban district partnered with the program provider and subsequently led substantial student achievement increases in 8 of the 10 participating schools. We analyzed district plans submitted to the state, its turnaround launch plan and multiple improvement plans; multiple improvement plans for each school; 3 provider-developed site visit reports about district progress; and 7 leadership meetings and 24 interviews of district leaders and school principals.
We used NVivo qualitative data analysis software to analyze document data deductively (LeCompte & Schensul, 2010) against programmatic expectations to identify district leader behavior, actions, and choices potentially key to launching initial turnaround (Hitt & Meyers, 2017). We then coded interviews again using an inductive content analysis approach (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008) to extend conceptual understanding of mediating factors of successful district leadership. To do this, we employed grounded theory’s open coding scheme (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to build a conceptual understanding of a phenomenon without using a priori hypotheses. Perhaps key among our findings, district leadership fought district and community norms strategically to create a zone for these schools, prioritizing resources for them while vehemently arguing for equity over equality. District leaders also relentlessly pursued external opportunities for students to engage in community service. The district also initially emphasized culture and climate over instructional development.
