Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

School turnaround initiatives have prioritized the school principal as the change lever. Little overall consideration about the critical role district leadership plays. In this study, we analyze the turnaround launch and, improvement plans of school district leaders participating in a university, turnaround program. We find that district leaders identify certain systems, levers as more significant challenges than other ones, but their espoused, ways to address these challenges are disparate if determined at all. Implications for districts and schools are discussed.

Keywords

school turnaround district leadership systems leadership

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aladjem

D. K.

Birman

Orland

Harr-Robbins

Heredia

Parrish

T. B.

Rufﬁni

S. J.

(2010). Achieving dramatic school improvement: An exploratory study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Ofﬁce of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.

Anderson

S. E.

(2006). The school district’s role in educational change. International Journal of Educational Reform, 15(1), 13-37.

Balfanz

Legters

(2004). Locating the dropout crisis: Which high schools produce the nation’s dropouts? Where are they located? Who attends them? Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Center for Social Organization of Schools.

Baroody

(2011). Turning around the nation’s lowest performing schools: Five steps districts can take to improve their chances of success. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Beck

Murphy

(1998). Site-based management and school success: Untangling the variables. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 349-357.

Bertanlanffy

L. V.

(1962). General system theory: A critical review. In Bertanlanffy

L. V.

Rapoport

(Eds.), General systems: Yearbook of the society for the advancement of general systems theory (Vol. 1, pp. 1-10). Ann Arbor, MI: The Society.

Boulding

K. E.

(1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2, 197-208.

Clifford

Behrstock-Sherratt

Fetters

(2012). The ripple effect: A synthesis of research on principal influence to inform performance evaluation design. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/1707_The_Ripple_Effect_d8_Online_0.pdf

Daft

R. L.

(2004). Organization theory and design. Mason, OH: South-Western.

10.

de la Torre Allensworth

E., M.

Jagesic

Sebastian

Salmonowicz

Meyers

Gerdeman

(2013). Turning around low-performing schools in Chicago: Full report. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago.

11.

Duke

D. L.

(2015). Leadership for low-performing schools: A step-by-step guide to the school turnaround process. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld.

12.

Duke

D. L.

Salmonowicz

(2010). Key decisions of a ﬁrst-year “turnaround” principal. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38, 33-58. doi:10.1177/1741143209345450

13.

Finnigan

K. S.

Stewart

T. J.

(2009). Leading change under pressure: An examination of principal leadership in low-performing schools. Journal of School Leadership, 19, 586-618.

14.

Firestone

(1989). Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 151-164.

15.

Fullan

(2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

16.

Fullan

(2005). Leadership and sustainability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

17.

Fullan

(2006a). The future of educational change: System thinkers in action. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 113-122. doi:10.1007/s10833-006-9003-9

18.

Fullan

(2006b). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

19.

Galbraith

J. R.

(1973). Designing complex organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

20.

Galbraith

J. R.

(1977). Organization design. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

21.

Hallinger

Heck

(1998). Exploring the principals’ contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-191. doi:10.1080/0924345980090203

22.

Heissel

J. A.

Ladd

H. F.

(2018). School turnaround in North Carolina: A regression discontinuity analysis. Economics of Education Review, 62, 302-320.

23.

Hitt

D. H.

Meyers

C. V.

(2018). Beyond turnaround: A synthesis of relevant frameworks for leaders of sustained improvement previously in low-performing schools. School Leadership & Management, 38, 4-31. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2017.1374943

24.

Hitt

D. H.

Tucker

P. D.

(2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to inﬂuence student achievement: A uniﬁed framework. Review of Educational Research, 86, 531-569. doi:10.3102/00346554315614911

25.

Honig

M. I.

(2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 357-383.

26.

Honig

M. I.

(2009). No small thing: School district central office bureaucracies and the implementation of new small autonomous schools initiatives. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 387-422.

27.

Honig

M. I.

Copland

M. A.

Rainey

Lorton

J. A.

Newton

(2010). Central office transformation for district-wide teaching and learning improvement. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Central-Office-Transformation-District-Wide-Teaching-and-Learning.pdf

28.

Lawrence

P. R.

Lorsch

J. W.

(1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston, MA: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

29.

Le Floch

K. C.

O’Day

Birman

Hurlburt

Nayfack

Halloran

Wei

T. E

. (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.

30.

Leithwood

(2010). Characteristics of school districts that are exceptionally effective in closing the achievement gap. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 245-291. doi:10.1080/15700761003731500

31.

Leithwood

Harris

Strauss

(2010). Leading school turnaround: How successful school leaders transform low-performing schools. New York, NY: John Wiley.

32.

Leithwood

Louis

K. S.

Anderson

Wahlstrom

(2004). How leadership influences student learning: Review of research. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.

33.

Leithwood

Patten

Jantzi

(2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 671-706. doi:10.1177/0013161X10377347

34.

Leithwood

Strauss

Anderson

S. E.

(2007). District contributions to school leaders’ sense of efficacy: A qualitative analysis. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 735-770.

35.

Lochmiller

C. R.

Chesnut

C. E.

(2017). Preparing turnaround leaders for high needs urban schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 55, 85-102. doi:10.1108/JEA-11-2015-0099

36.

Meyers

C. V.

Smylie

(2017). The myths of school turnaround policy and practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 16, 502-523. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2016.1270333

37.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Mulford

Kendall

Ewington

Edmunds

Kendall

Silins

(2009). Successful principalship of high-performance schools in high-poverty communities. Journal of Educational Administration, 46, 461-480. doi:10.1108/09578230810882009

39.

Murphy

Hallinger

(1986). The superintendent as instructional leader: Findings from effective school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 24, 213-236.

40.

Murphy

Hallinger

(1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective school districts. Journal of Educational Research, 81, 175-181.

41.

Murphy

Meyers

C. V.

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

42.

Murphy

Torre

(2015). Vision: Essential scaffolding. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43, 177-197. doi:10.1177/1741143214523017

43.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).

44.

Odden

Kelly

(2008). Strategic management of human capital in public education. Madison, WI: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

45.

Papay

J. P.

(2017). The effects of school turnaround strategies in Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://www.shankerinstitute.org/sites/shanker/files/ASI%20Presentation%20-%20School%20Turnaround%20-%20April%202017%20-%20To%20Post.pdf

46.

Payne

C. M.

(2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

47.

Peck

Reitzug

U. C.

(2014). School turnaround fever: The paradoxes of a historical practice promoted as a new reform. Urban Education, 49, 8-38. doi:10.1177/0042085912472511

48.

Petersen

G. J.

(1999). Demonstrated actions of instructional leaders: An examination of five California superintendents. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(18). Retrieved from https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/553/676

49.

Player

Hitt

D. H.

Robinson

(2014). District readiness to support school turnaround: A user’s guide to inform the work of state education agencies and districts. Retrieved from https://centeronschoolturnaround.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/District_Readiness_to_Support_School_Turnaround.pdf

50.

Player

Katz

(2016). Assessing school turnaround: Evidence from Ohio. Elementary School Journal, 116, 675-698. doi:10.1086/686467

51.

Reardon

S. F.

Hinze-Pifer

(2017). Test score growth among public school students in Chicago, 2009-2014. Retrieved from https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/test-score-growth-among-chicago-public-school-students-2009-2014

52.

Rorrer

Skrla

Scheurich

(2009). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 307-358.

53.

Scott

Dunn

McCauley

(2017). Reframing turnaround: From a school initiative to a system initiative. In Meyers

Darwin

(Eds.), Enduring myths that inhibit school turnaround (pp. 111-132). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

54.

Scott

W. R.

(2001). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

55.

Scott

W. R.

Davis

G. F.

(2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open system perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.

56.

Smylie

M. A.

(2010). Continuous school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

57.

Smylie

M. A.

(2016). Three organizational lessons for school district improvement.In Daly

A. J.

Finnigan

K. S.

(Eds.), Thinking and acting systemically: Improving school districts under pressure (pp. 209-220). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

58.

Stuit

D. A.

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

59.

Supovitz

Sirinides

May

. (2009). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 31-56. doi:10.1177/1094670509353043

60.

Trujillo

Renee

(2015). Irrational exuberance for market-based reform: How federal turnaround policies thwart democratic schooling. Teachers College Record, 117, 1-34.

61.

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, 89-119. doi:10.1207/S15327930PJE804_06

62.

Yatsko

Lake

Nelson

E. C.

Bowen

(2012). Tinkering toward transformation: A look at federal School Improvement Grant implementation. Bothell, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.

63.

Zavadsky

(2012). School turnarounds: The essential role districts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

District Leaders Engaged in School Turnaround: Identified Challenges and Espoused Responses

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References