Powering Forces and History

  • Joseph F. Murphy
  • Joshua F. Bleiberg
Part of the Education, Equity, Economy book series (EEEC, volume 6)


Interwoven in turnaround are issues of democracy, constituent influence and control over organizational decisions, ownership of public institutions, trust, and organizational accountability. Proponents believe that turnarounds increase knowledge, about, access to, and participation in governance; make organizations easier to change; and prevent undue consolidation of power at geographically distant locations and hierarchically remote organizational levels. Lurking slightly in the background is the belief that increased responsiveness and accountability will result in more effective and efficient internal operations and the development of a better product or the delivery of a better service.


  1. Aladjem, D. K., Birman, B. F., Orland, M., Harr-Robins, J., Heredia, A., Parrish, T. B., & Ruffini, S. J. (2010). Achieving dramatic school improvement: An exploratory study. A cross-site analysis from the evaluation of comprehensive school reform program implementation and outcomes study. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  2. American Institutes for Research. (2011). School turnaround: A pocket guide. In Reauthorizing ESEA: Making research relevant. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Anrig, G. (2015). Lessons from School Improvement Grants that worked. New York, NY: The Century Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Apple, M. (2007). Who needs teacher education? Gender, technology, and the work of home schooling. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(2), 111–130.Google Scholar
  5. Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. (2004). Locating the dropout crisis. Which high schools produce the nation’s dropouts? Where are they located? Who attends them? Report 70. Baltimore, MD: CRESPAR.Google Scholar
  6. Berends, M., Bodilly, S. J., & Kirby, S. N. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole-school reform: New American schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  7. Bifulco, R., Duncombe, W., & Yinger, J. (2005). Does whole-school reform boost student performance? The case of New York City. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(1), 47–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borman, G. D., Rachuba, L., Datnow, A., Alberg, M., MacIver, M., Stringfield, S., & Ross, S. (2000). Four models of school improvement: Successes and challenges in reforming low-performing, high-poverty Title I schools. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  10. Brady, R. (2003). Can failing schools be fixed? Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Brinson, D., & Rhim, L. (2009). Breaking the habit of low performance. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, D. L. (1992). Nation found losing ground on measures of child well-being. Education Week, 12(28), 14.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper, B. S., & Sureau, J. (2007). The politics of homeschooling: New developments, new challenges. Educational Policy, 21(1), 110–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Council of the Great City Schools. (2015). School Improvement Grants: Progress report from America’s great city schools. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  15. Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dee, T. S. (2012). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 Stimulus. Cambridge, MA: Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doherty, K. (2000). Early implementation of the (CSRD) Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  19. Dougherty, S., & Weiner, J. (2015a). The impact of mandated interventions in low-performing schools under ESEA waivers. Paper presented at Association for Policy Analysis and Management. Miami, FL.Google Scholar
  20. Dougherty, S., & Weiner, J. (2015b). The Rhode to turnaround? The impact of being just labeled as low-performing under No Child Left Behind waivers. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  21. Dragoset, L., Thomas, J., Herrmann, M., Deke, J., James-Burdumy, S., … Wei, T. (2017). School Improvement Grants: Implementation and effectiveness. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  22. Duke, D. L. (2012). Tinkering and turnarounds: Understanding the contemporary campaign to improve low-performing schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 17(1–2), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Education Resource Strategies. (2012). Sustaining school turnaround at scale: Brief 1. Watertown, MA.Google Scholar
  24. Le Floch, K. C., O’Day, J., Birman, B., Hurlburt, S., Nayfack, M., Halloran, C., Boyle, A., Brown, S., Mercado-Garcia, D., Goff, R., Rosenberg, L., & Hulsey, L. (2016). Case studies of schools receiving School Improvement Grants: Final report (NCEE 2016-4002). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  25. Gaither, M. (2008). Homeschool: An American history. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gross, B., Booker, T. K., & Goldhaber, D. (2009). Boosting student achievement: The effect of comprehensive school reform on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(2), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamilton, M. P., Heilig, J. V., & Pazey, B. L. (2014). A nostrum of school reform? Turning around reconstituted urban Texas high schools. Urban Education, 49(2), 182–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harris, D., & Larsen, M. (2016). The effects of the New Orleans post-Katrina school reforms on student academic outcomes. New Orleans, LA: Education Research Alliance.Google Scholar
  29. Hassel, E. A., Hassel, B. C., Arkin, M. D., Kowal, J. M., & Steiner, L. M. (2006). School restructuring under No Child Left behind: What works when? A guide for education leaders. Washington, DC: Learning Point Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Heissel, J. A., & Ladd, H. F. (2016). School turnaround in North Carolina: A regression discontinuity analysis. Washington, DC: CALDER.Google Scholar
  31. Henry, G. T., Campbell, S. L., Thompson, C. L., & Townsend, L. W. (2014). Evaluation of district and school transformation school-level coaching and professional development activities. Raleigh, NC: Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation.Google Scholar
  32. Herman, R. (2012). Scaling school turnaround. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 17(1–2), 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Herrmann, M., Dragoset, L., & James-Burdumy, S. (2014). Are low-performing schools adopting practices promoted by school improvement grants? Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.Google Scholar
  34. Hood, C. (1994). Explaining economic policy reversals. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Huberman, M., Parrish, T., Hannan, S., Arellanes, M., & Shambaugh, L. (2011). Turnaround schools in California: Who are they and what strategies do they use? Washington, DC: American Institute for Research.Google Scholar
  36. Hula, R. C. (1990). Preface. In R. C. Hula (Ed.), Market-based public policy (pp. xiii–xxiv). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hurlburt, S., Therriault, S. B., & Le Floch, K. C. (2012). School improvement grants: Analyses of state applications and eligible and awarded schools. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.Google Scholar
  38. Jambulapati, P. (2011). A portrait of school improvement grantees. Charts you can trust. Washington, DC: Education Sector.Google Scholar
  39. Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2011). More to do, but less capacity to do it: States’ progress in implementing the Recovery Act education reforms. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.Google Scholar
  40. Kowal, J. M., & Hassel, E. A. (2005). School restructuring options under No Child Left Behind: Turnarounds with new leaders and staff. Washington, DC: Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.Google Scholar
  41. Kunzman, R. (2009a). Understanding homeschooling: A better approach to regulation. Theory and Research in Education, 7(3), 311–330.Google Scholar
  42. Kunzman, R. (2009b). Write these laws on your children: Inside the world of conservative Christian homeschooling. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kutash, J., Nico, E., Gorin, E., Rahmatullah, S., & Tallant, K. (2010). The school turnaround field guide. Boston, MA: Foundational Strategy Group.Google Scholar
  44. Lachlan-Hache, J., Naik, M., & Casserly, M. (2012). The School Improvement Grant rollout in America’s great city schools: School Improvement Grants. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools.Google Scholar
  45. Le Floch, K., Boyle, A., & Therriault, S. B. (2008). State systems of support under NCLB: Design components and quality considerations. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  46. Loveless, T. (2010). The 2009 Brown Center report on American education: How well are American students learning. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  47. Marsh, J. A., Strunk, K. O., & Bush, S. (2013). Portfolio district reform meets school turnaround: Early implementation findings from the Los Angeles Public School Choice Initiative. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 498–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Martin, B. (1993). In the public interest? Privatization and public sector reform. London, UK: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  49. Mass Insight. (2010). School turnaround models emerging turnaround strategies and results. Boston, MA: Mass Insight.Google Scholar
  50. Mathis, W. J. (2009). NCLB’s ultimate restructuring alternatives: Do they improve the quality of education? Education Policy Research Unit. East Lansing, MI: The Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice.Google Scholar
  51. McGuinn, P. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy., 26(1), 136–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McMurrer, J. (2012). Schools with federal improvement grants face challenges in replacing principals and teachers. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.Google Scholar
  53. McMurrer, J., Dietz, S., & Rentner, D. S. (2011). Early state implementation of Title I School Improvement Grants under the Recovery Act. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.Google Scholar
  54. McMurrer, J., & McIntosh, S. (2012). State implementation and perceptions of Title I School Improvement Grants under the Recovery Act: One year later. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.Google Scholar
  55. Meyers, C. V., & Murphy, J. (2007). Turning around failing schools: An analysis. Journal of School Leadership, 17(5), 631–659.Google Scholar
  56. Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2005). Corrective action in low performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Murphy, J. (1991). Restructuring schools: Capturing and assessing the phenomena. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  58. Murphy, J. (2010a). Turning around failing organizations: Insights for educational leaders. Journal of Educational Change, 11(2), 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Murphy, J. (2010b). The educator’s handbook for understanding and closing achievement gaps. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  60. Murphy, J., & Datnow, A. (Eds.). (2003). Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  61. Orland, M. (2011). The federal comprehensive school reform program and school turnaround: Key evaluation findings. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.Google Scholar
  62. Peck, C., & Reitzug, U. C. (2014). School turnaround fever: The Paradoxes of a historical practice promoted as a new reform. Urban Education, 49(1), 8–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Perlman, C. L., & Redding, S. (2011). Handbook on effective implementation of School Improvement Grants. Washington, DC: Center on Innovation & Improvement.Google Scholar
  64. Peterson, P. E., & Chingos, M. M. (2009). Impact of for-profit and nonprofit management on student achievement: The Philadelphia intervention, 2002–2008. Working Paper Series PEPG 09-02. Cambridge, MA: Program on Education Policy and Governance.Google Scholar
  65. Petrie, H. G. (1990). Reflecting on the second wave of reform: Restructuring the teaching profession. In S. L. Jacobson & J. A. Conway (Eds.), Educational leadership in an age of reform (pp. 14–29). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  66. Peurach, D. J., & Neumerski, C. M. (2015). Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 379–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Picucci, A. C., Brownson, A., Kahlert, R., & Sobel, A. (2002). Driven to succeed: High-performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle schools. Volume I: Cross-case analysis of high-performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle schools. Volume I. Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center and the STAR Center at The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  68. Potter, D., Reynolds, D., & Chapman, C. (2002). School improvement for schools facing challenging circumstances: A review of research and practice. School Leadership & Management, 22(3), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Redding, S., & Rhim, L. M. (2013). Evolution of school turnaround. In L. Rhim & S. Redding (Eds.), The state role in school turnaround: Emerging best practices (pp. 19–28). San Francisco, CA: WestEd.Google Scholar
  70. Reyes, A., & Garcia, A. (2014). Turnaround policy and practice: A case study of turning around a failing school with English-Language-Learners. Urban Review: Issues and Ideas in Public Education, 46(3), 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rhim, L. M., & Redding, S. (2014). The state role in school turnaround: Emerging best practices. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.Google Scholar
  72. Rice, J. K., & Malen, B. (2010). School reconstitution as an education reform strategy. Washington, DC: National Education Association.Google Scholar
  73. Rosenberg, L., Christianson, M., Angus, M., Rosenthal, E., & Wei, T. (2014). A focused look at rural schools receiving School Improvement Grants. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy.Google Scholar
  74. Rubenstein, M. C., & Wodatch, J. K. (2000). Stepping up to the challenge: Case studies of educational improvement in Title I secondary schools. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  75. Schueler, B. E., Goodman, J., & Deming, D. J. (2016). Can states take over and turn around school districts? Evidence from Lawrence, Massachusetts. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Scott, C. (2008). A call to restructure restructuring: Lessons from the No Child Left behind Act in five states. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.Google Scholar
  77. Scott, C. (2009). Improving low-performing schools: Lessons from five years of studying school restructuring Under No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.Google Scholar
  78. Scott, C. (2011). Changing tires en route: Michigan rolls out millions in School Improvement Grants. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.Google Scholar
  79. Smarick, A. (2010). The turnaround fallacy. Education Next, 10(1), 20–26.Google Scholar
  80. Stuit, D. (2012). Turnaround and closure rates in the charter and district sectors. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 17(1–2), 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sunderman, G. L. (2001). Accountability mandates and the implementation of Title I schoolwide programs: A comparison of three urban districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 503–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tanenbaum, C., Boyle, A., Graczewski, C., James-Burdumy, S., Dragoset, L., Hallgren, K., & others. (2015). State capacity to support school turnaround. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.Google Scholar
  83. Trujillo, T., & Renee, M. (2012). Democratic school turnarounds: Pursuing equity and learning from evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.Google Scholar
  84. Trujillo, T., & Renee, M. (2015). Irrational exuberance for market-based reform: How federal turnaround policies thwart democratic schooling. Teachers College Record, 117(6), 1–34.Google Scholar
  85. U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Funding status—Comprehensive school reform program [programs; budget materials; reference materials]. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from
  86. U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Data reflecting the number of schools in improvement, corrective action, and restructuring in school year (SY) 2008–2009 (based on SY 2007–2008 assessments) reported by States in the SY 2007–2008 Consolidates State Performance Report (CSPR). Retrieved from
  87. U.S. Department of Education. (2014a). School Improvement Grant (SIG) national assessment results summary: Cohorts 1 and 2. Washington, DC: NCES.Google Scholar
  88. U.S. Department of Education. (2014b). School Improvement Grants national summary: School year 2012–2013. Washington, DC: NCES.Google Scholar
  89. U.S. Department of Education. (2015, June 11). Funding status—School Improvement Fund [Programs; reference materials; budget materials]. Retrieved November 5, 2017, from
  90. Wang, M. C., Wong, K. K., & Kim, J. R. (1999). A national study of Title I schoolwide programs: A synopsis of interim findings. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Google Scholar
  91. Webber, A., Troppe, P., Milanowski, A., Gutmann, B., Reisner, E., & Goertz, M. (2014). State implementation of reforms promoted under the Recovery Act. A report from charting the progress of education reform: An evaluation of the Recovery Act’s role. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.Google Scholar
  92. Wong, K. K., & Meyer, S. J. (1998). Schoolwide programs: A synthesis of findings from recent evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wong, K. K., & Shen, F. X. (2003). Measuring the effectiveness of city and state takeover as a school reform strategy. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 89–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Yatsko, S., Lake, R., Bowen, M., & Cooley Nelson, E. (2015). Federal School Improvement Grants (SIGs): How capacity and local conditions matter. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(1), 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zehr, M. A. (2011). Few big-name charter operators opt for federal ‘Restart’ Grants. Education Week, 30(23), 22–25.Google Scholar
  96. Ziebarth, T. (2002). State takeovers and reconstitutions, Education Commission of the States. Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  97. Zimmer, Ron, Henry, Gary, & Kho, Adam. (2016). The role of governance and management in school turnaround policies: The case of Tennessee’s Achievement School District and iZones. Unpublished.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph F. Murphy
    • 1
  • Joshua F. Bleiberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Peabody CollegeVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations