School Development in Culturally Diverse U.S. Schools: Balancing Evidence-Based Policies and Education Values
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a carefully presented and well-written paper which explores some of the tensions in the use of 'evidence' in education, and examines a School Development Model which responds to some of those tensions (maintaining democratic and humanistic values while recognising the use of evidence-informed practices). The paper makes its case clearly and succinctly. There are some further questions that the authors might consider before the paper is published:
Will all readers be clear about what you mean by 'school knowledge' (line 86) - is this the curriculum?
Is the contrast in values between the what works movement and Dewey's work sufficiently explicit? To some extent this is tackled in lines 109-135 and in the discussion on culturally-responsive leadership (210-226). But is there more that could be said about what ideas underpin the mainstream leadership / school improvement movement (and how these contrast with Dewey). I was looking for a couple of lines summarising this somehow, before moving into the empirical section.
Your focus on 'deficit thinking' is very important as a factor. It illustrates the different values underpinning different conceptions of the relation between education and society. I wondered if it could feature more in the conclusion.
I found a minor typo 'situate' is probably 'situated' (line 506)
Author Response
education-468507
Thank you to the reviewers for their very helpful and insightful comments regarding this manuscript.
Below please find the line by line revisions made to the manuscript. The authors were able to address each concern raised by the reviewers. Where asked, points have been clarified or expanded upon. Primarily, reorganization of some sections was required.
Explanation of Revisions
Line 14 Removed reference to survey, per suggestions of Reviewer 2
Line 21 Added key words, per suggestion of Reviewer 2
Line 82 Renamed 2. Review of Literature
Line 83 Relabeled 2.1
Line 87 Inserted (curriculum) to clarify school knowledge as recommended by Reviewer 1
Lines 132-140 Clarifying language added per Reviewer 1
Line 180 Relabeled as 2.2
Line 203 Relabeled as 2.3
Line 232 Relabeled as 3. Description of the Intervention
Line 235 Relabeled as 3.1
Line 269 Relabeled 3.2
Line 279 Relabeled 4. Methodology
Line 288 Relabeled 4.1
Line 296 Added 4.2 Data Collection
Lines 299-305 Deleted reference to surveys because they were not part of the data analysis but rather a source of reflection for school teams. This addresses the concern raised by Reviewer 2.
Lines 307-308 Explained letter grades further
Lines 309-310 Deleted reference to surveys
Line 323 Relabeled as 5.
Line 326 Relabeled as 5.1
Line 327 Relabeled as 5.1.1
Line 349 Relabeled as 5.2
Line 441 Deleted reference to surveys
Line 495 Relabeled as 6. Discussion
Lines 496-535 Added further clarification and discussion as requested by both reviewers
Line 536 Added 7. Conclusions
Line 554 Added 7.1 Limitations
Lines 556-562 Added Limitations to the study as requested by Reviewer 2
Line 564 Added 7.2 Future Directions
Line 569 Corrected typo as indicated by Reviewer 1
Reviewer 2 Report
The research paper under review treats an interesting topic that is examined through a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Despite the fact that this is a diligent and articulated paper, certain improvements need to be made in order for its academic value to be totally revealed.
The first suggestion concerns the keywords of the article. It could be useful if words such as United States, Arizona, and culturally diverse schools were added to the rest of the keywords, which are quite explicit. This addition would increase the Search Engine Optimization of the paper.
As for the literature review, it is thorough, nonetheless it could be further enriched and updated. The sections 2), 3) and 4) should be included in one section titled as “literature review” and 2), 3), 4) could be sub-sections of this.
The same goes for the sections 5) and 6) which should be sub-sections of a section titled as “Methodology”. Concerning the methodology, the authors should consider elaborating more on the quantitative results, in detail. At the moment the analysis seems inadequate and confusing as only the qualitative results have been analyzed in detail. Otherwise, they have to reform the content and name the research a qualitative one.
Moreover, a new section concerning the limitations of this specific research paper ought to be added. This section should also include some suggestions for future research, which could lead to further research in the future and should be titled as “limitations of the study and suggestions for future research”. Although such information is partially mentioned in the 8th section, it would be better if this information was transferred to the aforementioned section.
Furthermore, the parts concerning the comparative analysis of the paper’s results and the conclusions should be separate. The comparative analysis of the research should also be enriched and more extensive. Therefore, one section could be the “discussion of the results” with the comparative analysis and the last section could be the “conclusions” in which the findings and the implications of the study are briefly repeated.
At last, regarding the in-text references, the authors should make sure that they follow the required by the journal referencing and citation style.
Overall, the paper has good potential as long as these suggestions are taken into consideration.
Author Response
education-468507
Thank you to the reviewers for their very helpful and insightful comments regarding this manuscript.
Below please find the line by line revisions made to the manuscript. The authors were able to address each concern raised by the reviewers. Where asked, points have been clarified or expanded upon. Primarily, reorganization of some sections was required.
Explanation of Revisions
Line 14 Removed reference to survey, per suggestions of Reviewer 2
Line 21 Added key words, per suggestion of Reviewer 2
Line 82 Renamed 2. Review of Literature
Line 83 Relabeled 2.1
Line 87 Inserted (curriculum) to clarify school knowledge as recommended by Reviewer 1
Lines 132-140 Clarifying language added per Reviewer 1
Line 180 Relabeled as 2.2
Line 203 Relabeled as 2.3
Line 232 Relabeled as 3. Description of the Intervention
Line 235 Relabeled as 3.1
Line 269 Relabeled 3.2
Line 279 Relabeled 4. Methodology
Line 288 Relabeled 4.1
Line 296 Added 4.2 Data Collection
Lines 299-305 Deleted reference to surveys because they were not part of the data analysis but rather a source of reflection for school teams. This addresses the concern raised by Reviewer 2.
Lines 307-308 Explained letter grades further
Lines 309-310 Deleted reference to surveys
Line 323 Relabeled as 5.
Line 326 Relabeled as 5.1
Line 327 Relabeled as 5.1.1
Line 349 Relabeled as 5.2
Line 441 Deleted reference to surveys
Line 495 Relabeled as 6. Discussion
Lines 496-535 Added further clarification and discussion as requested by both reviewers
Line 536 Added 7. Conclusions
Line 554 Added 7.1 Limitations
Lines 556-562 Added Limitations to the study as requested by Reviewer 2
Line 564 Added 7.2 Future Directions
Line 569 Corrected typo as indicated by Reviewer 1
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author(s) have successfully made most of the major revisions that are necessary for the publication of the paper. Nevertheless, some alterations are still required.
To begin with, since the research of the study is mainly qualitative, the sentence of the abstract “Evaluation methods included a quantitative analysis of student outcomes in school letter grades required by evidence-based policies as well as qualitative interviews with leadership teams in 71 schools” should be rephrased. It could be “Evaluation methods included a qualitative analysis and interviews with leadership teams in 71 schools, which is accompanied with some quantitative data regarding the student outcomes”. The authors need to be completely explicit concerning the research methods they utilized.
As for the literature review, more references are required and these references should be fairly recent because many of the existing citations concern the literature of the previous century.
Regarding the in-text citation, the authors should make sure that they follow the required by the journal referencing and citation style. It means that they should avoid using numbers (e.g [1]) as references. They should prefer the usual and universally acceptable way instead. For instance, these types of citation could be used: “(John Doe, 2000)” or “John Doe (2000) mentioned…”.
Moreover, the parts regarding the limitations of the study and the suggestions for future research are satisfying. Nonetheless, they should be a separate section, after the Discussion of the results, and not sub-sections of the concluding part. In addition, the concluding part ought to be the last one, before the references.
Another, minor suggestion, is that when parts of the interviews are cited, quotation marks and italics should be used. It is clear which parts are parts of an interview, but this alteration would make it totally pellucid. Some picayune typos are also found in the section of the references (e.g. line 652 and 655).
To sum up, having the above-mentioned changes made the paper will be complete and suitable for publication.
Author Response
We revised the sentence regarding evaluation methods in the abstract, lines 13-15 of the abstract
Recent references were added in the Literature Review section in lines 116 and lines 211-217.
We updated in-text citations required by the journal referencing and citation style as clarified by the editorial assistant.
We moved the sections on Limitations of the Study and Future Directions after the Discussion section.
We corrected typos in the references and added those we update in the Literature Review section.
