Gamed by the System

Abstract

The recent policy focus on the turnaround of persistently low-achieving schools has generated considerable debate about the reforms needed to dramatically and quickly increase school performance. The purpose of this article is not to focus on specific turnaround interventions, but rather on the identification of schools slated to receive these interventions. Results from the study of 1,059 public schools suggested that operational definitions that relied on No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 metrics overidentified high schools educating diverse populations.

Keywords

school change school accountability school turnaround school effectiveness school improvement

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aladjem

D. K.

Birman

B. F.

Orland

Harr-Robins

Heredia

Parrish

T. B.

Ruffini

S. J.

(2010). Achieving dramatic school improvement: An exploratory study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Armor

Conry-Oseguera

Cox

King

McDonnell

Pascal

Zellman

(1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading program in selected Los Angeles minority schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Austin

G. R.

(1979). Exemplary schools and the search for effectiveness. Educational Leadership, 37, 10-12.

Balfanz

Herzog

MacIver

D. J.

(2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle-grades schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42, 223-235. doi:10.1080/00461520701621079

Balfanz

Legters

West

T. C.

Weber

L. M.

(2007). Are NCLB’s measures, incentives, and improvement strategies the right ones for the nation’s low-performing high schools? American Educational Research Journal, 44, 559-593. doi:10.3102/0002831207306768

Brookover

W. B.

Lezotte

L. W.

(1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident with changes in student achievement. East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.

Bryk

A. S.

Sebring

P. B.

Allensworth

Luppescu

Easton

J. Q.

(2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Choi

Seltzer

Herman

Yamashiro

(2007). Children left behind in AYP and non-AYP schools: Using student progress and the distribution of student gains to validate AYP. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(3), 21-32.

Cooley

V. E.

Shen

(2000). Factors influencing applying for urban principalship. Education and Urban Society, 32, 443-454.

10.

Darling-Hammond

LaPointe

Meyerson

D. E.

Orr

M. T.

Cohen

(2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.

11.

Dillon

(2011, February 8). U.S. plan to replace principals hits snag: Who will step in? The New York Times, p. A15.

12.

Duke

D. L.

(2007). Keys to sustaining successful school turnaround. Unpublished manuscript, Darden-Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education, Charlottesville, VA.

13.

Duke

D. L.

Jacobson

(2011). Tackling the toughest turnarounds: Low-performing high schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 34-38.

14.

Duke

D. L.

Tucker

P. D.

Belcher

Crews

Harrison-Coleman

Higgins

West

(2005). Lift-off: Launching the school turnaround process in 10 Virginia schools. Unpublished manuscript, Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education, Charlottesville, VA. Retrieved from http://www.darden.virginia.edu/web/uploadedFiles/Darden/Darden_Curry_PLE/UVA_School_Turnaround/LiftOff.pdf

15.

Duncan

(2009, June 17). Start over. Education Week, 28(35), p. 36.

16.

Forte

(2010). Examining the assumptions underlying the NCLB federal accountability policy on school improvement. Educational Psychologist, 45, 76-88. doi:10.1080/00461521003704738

17.

Hemelt

S. W.

(2011). Performance effects of failure to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Evidence from a regression discontinuity framework. Economics of Education Review, 30, 702-723. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.02.009

18.

Herman

Dawson

Dee

Greene

Maynard

Redding

(2008). Turning around chronically low performing schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

19.

Hess

G. A.

Jr. (1999). Expectations, opportunity, capacity, and will: The four essential components of Chicago School Reform. Educational Policy, 13, 494-517.

20.

Hochbein

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

21.

Hochbein

(2012). Relegation and reversion: A longitudinal examination of school turnaround and downfall. Journal of Education for Students Placed At-Risk, 17(1-2), 92-107.

22.

Jacob

B. A.

(2005). Accountability, incentives, and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 761-796. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.08.004

23.

Johnson

J. F.

Asera

(Eds.). (1999). Hope for urban education: A study of nine high-performing, high-poverty, urban elementary schools. Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center, University of Texas.

24.

Kane

T. J.

Staiger

D. O.

(2002). The promise and pitfalls of using imprecise school accountability measures. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(4), 91-114.

25.

Ladd

H. F.

Lauen

D. L.

(2010). Status versus growth: The distributional effects of school accountability policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29, 426-450. doi:10.1002/pam.20504

26.

Levine

T. R.

Hullett

C. R.

(2002). Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28, 612-625.

27.

Maltese

A. V.

Hochbein

(2012). The consequences of “school improvement”: Examination of the association between school improvement and student science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 804-830.

28.

Matthews

Sammons

(2005). Survival of the weakest: The differential improvement of schools causing concern in England. London Review of Education, 3, 159-176.

29.

Maxwell

L. A.

(2009, December 2). Stimulus rules on “turnarounds” shift: Stimulus guidelines changed for turning around schools. Education Week, 29(13), pp. 1, 19.

30.

Murphy

Meyers

C. V.

(2008). Turning around failing schools: Leadership lessons from the organizational sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

31.

Office of Standards in Education. (1997). From failure to success. London, England: Author.

32.

Peterson

P. E.

West

M. R.

(2006). Is your child’s school effective: Don’t rely on NCLB to tell you. Education Next, 6(4), 76-80.

33.

Picucci

A. C.

Brownson

Kahlert

Sobel

(2002). Driven to succeed: High-performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle schools. Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center, University of Texas.

34.

Purkey

S. C.

Smith

M. S.

(1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 426-452.

35.

Reback

(2008). Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1394-1425. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.05.003

36.

Rhim

L. M.

Kowal

J. M.

Hassel

B. C.

Hassel

E. A.

(2007). School turnarounds: A review of the cross-sector evidence on dramatic organizational improvement. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement.

37.

Rothstein

(2009). What’s wrong with accountability by the numbers? American Educator, 33(1), 20-23.

38.

Rowan

Bossert

S. T.

Dwyer

D. C.

(1983). Research on effective schools: A cautionary note. Educational Researcher, 12(4), 24-31.

39.

Salmonowicz

(2009). Meeting the challenge of school turnaround: Lessons from the intersection of research and practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(3), 19-24.

40.

Sammons

(2007). School effectiveness and equity: Making connections: A review of school effectiveness and improvement research–Its implications for practitioners and policy makers. Berkshire, England: CfBT Education Trust.

41.

Smarick

(2010). The turnaround fallacy. Education Next, 10(1), 20-26.

42.

Spillane

J. P.

Diamond

J. B.

Walker

L. J.

Halverson

Jita

(2001). Urban school leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying and activating resources in an undervalued school subject. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 918-940.

43.

Stringfield

S. C.

Yakimowski-Srebnick

M. E.

(2005). Promise, progress, problems, and paradoxes of the three phases of accountability: A longitudinal case study of the Baltimore City Public Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 43-75. doi:10.3102/00028312042001043

44.

Stuit

D. A.

(2010). Are bad schools immortal? The scarcity of turnaround and shutdowns in both charter and district sectors. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

45.

Taggart

Sammons

(1999). Evaluating the impact of a raising school standards initiative. In Bosker

Creemers

Stringfield

(Eds.), Enhancing educational excellence, equity and efficiency: Evidence from evaluations of systems and schools in change (pp. 137-166). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

46.

Teddlie

Stringfield

(1993). Schools make a difference. Lessons learned from a 10-year study of school effects. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

47.

Whitaker

(2001). Where are the principal candidates: Perceptions of superintendents. NASSP Bulletin, 85, 82-92.

48.

Whitaker

Vogel

(2005). Joining the ranks: Opportunities and obstacles in obtaining principal positions. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18, 3-19.

49.

Wimpelberg

R. K.

Teddlie

Stringfield

(1989). Sensitivity to context: The past and future of effective schools research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25, 82-107.

50.

Winters

M. A.

Trivitt

J. R.

Greene

J. P.

(2010). The impact of high-stakes testing on student proficiency in low-stakes subjects: Evidence from Florida’s elementary science exam. Economics of Education Review, 29, 138-146. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.07.004

51.

Wolf

S. A.

Borko

Elliot

R. L.

McIver

(2000). “That dog won’t hunt”: Exemplary school change efforts within Kentucky reform. American Education Research Journal, 37, 349-393. doi:10.3102/00028312037002349