Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining the Failure of School Turnaround: Important Issues

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
School Turnaround Policies and Practices in the US

Part of the book series: Education, Equity, Economy ((EEEC,volume 6))

  • 378 Accesses

Abstract

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).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Apple, M. (2007). Who needs teacher education? Gender, technology, and the work of home schooling. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(2), 111–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosetti, L. (2004). Determinants of school choice: Understanding how parents choose elementary schools in Alberta. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 387–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coldron, J., & Boulton, P. (1991). ‘Happiness’ as a criterion of parents’ choice of school. Journal of Education Policy, 6(2), 169–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, D. L. (2006a). Keys to sustaining successful school turnarounds. ERS Spectrum, 24(4), 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, D. L. (2006b). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fair Test. (2007). How standardized testing damages education. Jamaica Plain, MA: National Center for Fair and Open Testing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, C. W. (1990). The Research Agenda Project as prologue. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fossey, R. (1994). Open enrollment in Massachusetts: Why families choose. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(3), 320–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2005). Turnaround leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(59), 176–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaither, M. (2008). Homeschool: An American history. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gottfried, P. (1993). The conservative mevement (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Twayne.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hawley, W. D. (1989). Looking backward at education reform. Education Week, 9(9), 23–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hess, F., & Gift, T. (2008). How to turn school around. American School Board Journal. Special Report. January/February.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochbein, C. (2011). Overlooking the descent: Operational definition, identification, and description of school decline. Journal of Educational Change, 12(3), 281–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. W. (2013). “Turnaround” as shock therapy race, neoliberalism, and school reform. Urban Education, 48(2), 232–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Klein, A. (2012, April 15). What’s the payoff for $4.6 billion in School Improvement Grants? The Hechinger Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcotte, D. E., & Hansen, B. (2010). Time for school? Education Next, 10(1), 53–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, C. V., & Murphy, J. (2007). Turning around failing schools: An analysis. Journal of School Leadership, 17(5), 631–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Murphy, J. (1996). The privatization of schooling: Problems and possibilities. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Murphy, J., & Meyers, C. (2008). Turning around failing schools: Leadership lessons from the organizational sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J., & Torre, D. (2014). Creating productive cultures in schools: For students, teachers, and parents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Peurach, D. J., & Neumerski, C. M. (2015). Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 379–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Player, D., & Katz, V. (2016). Assessing school turnaround: Evidence from Ohio. The Elementary School Journal, 116(4), 675–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popham, W. J. (2004). America’s failing schools: How parents and teachers can cope with no child left behind. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, J. K., & Malen, B. (2010). School reconstitution as an education reform strategy. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riffert, F. (2005). The use and misuse of standardized testing: A whiteheading point of view. Interchange, 36(1), 231–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scates, D. E. (1938). The improvement of classroom testing. Review of Educational Research, 8(5), 522–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M., & Buckley, J. (2002). What do parents want from schools? Evidence from the internet. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Stanton, L., & Segal, A. (2013). Setting the bar for school turnaround. Boston, MA: Mass Insight.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Waddell, C. (2011). School Improvement Grants: Ransoming Title I schools in distress. Current Issues in Education, 14(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeehandelaar, D., & Northern, A. M. (2013). What parents want: Educational preferences and tradeoffs. Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

    Joseph F. Murphy & Joshua F. Bleiberg

Authors
  1. Joseph F. Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joshua F. Bleiberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Murphy, J.F., Bleiberg, J.F. (2019). Explaining the Failure of School Turnaround: Important Issues. In: School Turnaround Policies and Practices in the US. Education, Equity, Economy, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01434-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01434-6_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01433-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01434-6

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation