Explaining the Failure of School Turnaround: Important Issues

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


There is almost no information on the costs of turnarounds at the school level. While we know a good deal about the “reforms” as they are adopted by schools, we found no estimates of the real (monetary and non-monetary) costs of turnaround (e.g., cost of faculty time to interview principal and teacher candidates) and nothing beyond some relation to what the funds produce in terms of achievement score gains. “Tracking reform cash—and determining whether schools have gotten their money’s worth—remains daunting” (Klein, 2012, p. 11).


  1. Apple, M. (2007). Who needs teacher education? Gender, technology, and the work of home schooling. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(2), 111–130.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R., …, Shepard, L. A. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers (EPI Briefing Paper# 278). Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Beers, D., & Ellig, J. (1994). An economic view of the effectiveness of public and private schools. In S. Hakim, P. Seidenstat, & G. W. Bowman (Eds.), Privatizing eduatin and educational choice: Concepts, plans, and experiences (pp. 19–35). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosetti, L. (2004). Determinants of school choice: Understanding how parents choose elementary schools in Alberta. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Camara, W. J. (1997). Use and consequences of assessments in the USA: Professional, ethical and legal issues. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 140–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coldron, J., & Boulton, P. (1991). ‘Happiness’ as a criterion of parents’ choice of school. Journal of Education Policy, 6(2), 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cucchiara, M. B., Rooney, E., & Robertson-Kraft, C. (2015). “I’ve never seen people work so hard!” Teachers’ working conditions in the early stages of school turnaround. Urban Education, 50(3), 259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duke, D. L. (2006a). Keys to sustaining successful school turnarounds. ERS Spectrum, 24(4), 21–35.Google Scholar
  11. Duke, D. L. (2006b). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Elmore, R. F. (1993). School decentralization: Who gains? Who loses? In J. Hannaway & M. Carnoy (Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement (pp. 33–54). San Francisco, CA: Joseey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Fair Test. (2007). How standardized testing damages education. Jamaica Plain, MA: National Center for Fair and Open Testing.Google Scholar
  15. Fisher, C. W. (1990). The Research Agenda Project as prologue. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fitzpatrick, M. D., Grissmer, D., & Hastedt, S. (2011). What a difference a day makes: Estimating daily learning gains during kindergarten and first grade using a natural experiment. Economics of Education Review, 30(2), 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fossey, R. (1994). Open enrollment in Massachusetts: Why families choose. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(3), 320–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fullan, M. (2005). Turnaround leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(59), 176–181.Google Scholar
  19. Gaither, M. (2008). Homeschool: An American history. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glazerman, S. (1997). A conditional Logit model of elementary school choice: What do parents value? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, Harris School of Public Policy.Google Scholar
  21. Gottfried, P. (1993). The conservative mevement (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Twayne.Google Scholar
  22. Goyette, K. A., Farrie, D., & Freely, J. (2012). This school’s gone downhill: Racial change and perceived school quality among Whites. Social Problems, 59(2), 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Green, R. L., & Carl, B. R. (2000). A reform for troubled times: Takeovers of urban schools. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 569(1), 56–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Hastings, J. S., Van Weelden, R., & Weinstein, J. (2007). Preferences, information, and parental choice behavior in public school choice (No. w12995). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  26. Hawley, W. D. (1989). Looking backward at education reform. Education Week, 9(9), 23–35.Google Scholar
  27. Henig, J. R. (2008). What do we know about the outcomes of KIPP schools? East Lansing, MI: Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.Google Scholar
  28. Hess, F., & Gift, T. (2008). How to turn school around. American School Board Journal. Special Report. January/February.Google Scholar
  29. Hess, G. A. (2003). Reconstitution—Three years later monitoring the effect of sanctions on Chicago high schools. Education and Urban Society, 35(3), 300–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hochbein, C. (2011). Overlooking the descent: Operational definition, identification, and description of school decline. Journal of Educational Change, 12(3), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Hutchins, C. L. (1988). Design as the missing piece in edcuation. In The redesign of education: A collection of papers concerned with comprehensive edcuation reform: Vol. 1 (pp. 47–49). San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Reearch and Development.Google Scholar
  33. Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2007a). In low-income schools, parents want teachers who teach: In affluent schools, other things matter. Education Next, 7(3), 59–65.Google Scholar
  34. Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2007b). What do parents value in education? An empirical invstigation parents’ revealed preferences for teachers. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(4), 1603–1637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson, A. W. (2013). “Turnaround” as shock therapy race, neoliberalism, and school reform. Urban Education, 48(2), 232–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kirshner, B., & Jefferson, A. (2015). Participatory democracy and struggling schools: Making space for youth in school turnarounds. Teachers College Record, (6), 117, 1–126.Google Scholar
  37. Klein, A. (2012, April 15). What’s the payoff for $4.6 billion in School Improvement Grants? The Hechinger Report.Google Scholar
  38. Koretz, D., & Jennings, J. L. (2010, February). The misunderstanding and use of data from educational tests. In The process of data use, meeting at the spencer foundation. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  39. Koyama, J. (2015). When things come undone: The promise of dissembling education policy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(4), 548–559.Google Scholar
  40. Le Floch, K. C., O’Day, J., Birman, B., Hurlburt, S., Nayfack, M., Halloran, C., …, & 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
  41. Malen, B., Croninger, R., Muncey, D., & Redmond-Jones, D. (2002). Reconstituting schools: “Testing” the “theory of action”. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marcotte, D. E., & Hansen, B. (2010). Time for school? Education Next, 10(1), 53–59.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. McGee, G. W. (2004). Closing the achievement gap: Lessons from Illinois’ Golden Spike high-poverty high-performing schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 9(2), 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meyers, C. (2012). The centralizing role of terminology: A consideration of achievement gap, NCLB, and school turnaround. Peabody Journal of Education, 87(4), 468–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meyers, C. V., & Murphy, J. (2007). Turning around failing schools: An analysis. Journal of School Leadership, 17(5), 631–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mintrop, H., & Sunderman, G. L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement – and why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Murnane, R. J., & Levy, F. (1996). Teaching the new basic skills: Principles for educating childrne to thrive in a changing economy. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  49. Murphy, J. (1996). The privatization of schooling: Problems and possibilities. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  50. Murphy, J. (1999a). New consumerism: Evolving market dynamics in the institutional dimension of schooling. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on edcuational administration (2nd ed., pp. 405–419). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  51. Murphy, J. (1999b). A decade of change: An overview. In J. Murphy & P. Forsyth (Eds.), Educational administraton: A decade of reform (pp. 3–38). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  52. Murphy, J., & Meyers, C. (2008). Turning around failing schools: Leadership lessons from the organizational sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  53. Murphy, J., & Torre, D. (2014). Creating productive cultures in schools: For students, teachers, and parents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  54. O’Day, J., & Bitter, C. (2003). Evaluation study of the immediate intervention/underperforming schools program and the high achieving. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  55. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Allen, A. B. (2010). Extending the school day or school year: A systematic review of research (1985–2009). Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 401–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. Player, D., & Katz, V. (2016). Assessing school turnaround: Evidence from Ohio. The Elementary School Journal, 116(4), 675–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Popham, W. J. (2004). America’s failing schools: How parents and teachers can cope with no child left behind. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rice, J. K., & Malen, B. (2010). School reconstitution as an education reform strategy. Washington, DC: National Education Association.Google Scholar
  62. Riffert, F. (2005). The use and misuse of standardized testing: A whiteheading point of view. Interchange, 36(1), 231–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Scates, D. E. (1938). The improvement of classroom testing. Review of Educational Research, 8(5), 522–532.Google Scholar
  64. Schneider, M., & Buckley, J. (2002). What do parents want from schools? Evidence from the internet. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schneider, M., Teske, P., Marshall, M., & Roch, C. (1998). Shopping for schools: In the land of the blind, the one-eyed parent may be enough. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 769–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Scott, C., McMurrer, J., McIntosh, S., & Dibner, K. (2012). Opportunities and obstacles: Implementing stimulus-funded School Improvement Grants in Maryland, Michigan, and Idaho. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.Google Scholar
  67. Silva, E. (2012). Off the clock: What more time can (and can’t) do for school turnarounds (pp. 1–12). Washington, DC: Education Sector.Google Scholar
  68. Stanton, L., & Segal, A. (2013). Setting the bar for school turnaround. Boston, MA: Mass Insight.Google Scholar
  69. Strunk, K. O., Marsh, J. A., Hashim, A. K., & Bush-Mecenas, S. (2016). Innovation and a return to the status: A mixed-methods study of school reconstitution. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(3), 549–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stuit, D. (2010). Are bad schools immortal? The scarcity of turnarounds and shutdowns in both charter and district sectors. Washington, DC: Thomas Fordham Foundation.Google Scholar
  71. 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
  72. Thompson, C. L., Brown, K. M., Townsend, L. W., Henry, G. T., & Fortner, C. K. (2011). Turning around North Carolina’s lowest achieving schools (2006–2010). Chapel Hill, NC: Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation.Google Scholar
  73. 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
  74. Tyack, D. B. (1993). School governance in the United States: Historical puzzles and anomalies. In J. Hannaway & M. Carnoy (Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement (pp. 1–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  75. Waddell, C. (2011). School Improvement Grants: Ransoming Title I schools in distress. Current Issues in Education, 14(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  76. West, M., Ainscow, M., & Stanford, J. (2005). Sustaining improvement in schools in challenging circumstances: A study of successful practice. School Leadership & Management, 25(1), 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zeehandelaar, D., & Northern, A. M. (2013). What parents want: Educational preferences and tradeoffs. Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation.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