School turnaround—the rapid improvement of student achievement in low-performing schools—is increasingly a major topic of interest in K-12 public education. Federal legislation has left varying degrees of school improvement–related responsibilities up to states, and policy makers have divergent views about how to realize turnaround. We investigate and describe how each state education agency (SEA) is administering school turnaround efforts in federally designated priority schools. To accomplish this, we examined a variety of publicly available documents from SEA websites and summarized the data into three overarching categories. We discuss how this finding has significant implications for policy makers and SEAs, especially as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is implemented.
BerlinerD. C. (2006). Our impoverished view of educational research. Teachers College Record, 108, 949-995.
6.
BerlinerD. C. (2013). Effects of inequality and poverty vs. teachers and schooling on America’s youth. Teachers College Record, 115, 1-26.
7.
BirmanB. F.AladjemD. K.OrlandM. (2010, May). Studying turnaround schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
8.
BrownC. G.HessF. M.LautzenheiserD. K.OwenI. (2011). State education agencies as agents of change: What it will take for the states to step up on education reform?Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, The American Enterprise Institute.
9.
BrownJ. (2012, February). Cost doesn’t spell success for Colorado schools using consultants to improve achievement. The Denver Post. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/zy8yvo4
CorbettJ. (2011). Lead turnaround partners: How the emerging marketplace of lead turnaround partners is changing school improvement. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute.
12.
DavidJ. L. (2010). Drastic school turnaround strategies are risky. Educational Leadership, 68, 78-80.
13.
de la TorreM.AllensworthE.JagesicS.SebastianJ.SalmonowiczM.MeyersC.GerdemanR. D. (2013). Turning around low-performing schools in Chicago. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
14.
DillonS. (2010, August). Inexperienced companies chase U.S. school funds. The New York Times, p. A11.
15.
DukeD. L. (2015). Leadership for low-performing schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
16.
EloS.KyngäsH. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107-115.
17.
EmmaC. (2015, November). Here’s why $7 billion didn’t help America’s worst schools. POLITICO. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/p5nfcds
18.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, P.L. 114-95, 114, Stat. 1177 (2015).
19.
Executive Office of the President. (2015, December). Every student succeeds act: A progress report on elementary and secondary education. Washington, DC: The White House. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/zmhtmgp
20.
FinnC. E.WinklerA. M. (2010). Foreword. In StuitD. A. (Ed.), Are bad schools immortal? The scarcity of turnarounds and shutdowns in both charters and district sectors (pp. 4-9). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
21.
FinniganK. S.StewartT. J. (2009). Leading change under pressure: An examination of principal leadership in low-performing schools. Journal of School Leadership, 19, 586-618.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
24.
GoertzM. E.BarnesC.MassellD.FinkR.FrancisA. T. (2013). State education agencies’ acquisition and use of research knowledge in school improvement strategies (CPRE Research Report RR-77). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
25.
Hawaii Department of Education. (2015). Zones of school innovation. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/huxnjnb
26.
HermanR.GatesS. M.Chavez-HerreriasE. R.HarrisM. (2016). School leadership interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act: Vol. 1—A review of the evidence base, initial findings. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
27.
HoxbyC. (2005, Summer). Inadequate yearly progress: Unlocking the secrets of NCLB. Education Next, 5(3), 46-51.
Idaho Department of Education. (2012b). Idaho Building Capacity project: Capacity builder application. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/gwmqtty
30.
Illinois’s Center for School Improvement. (2015). Illinois CSI staff roles and responsibilities. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/hq9369h
31.
JohnsonA. W. (2013). “Turnaround” as shock therapy: Race, neoliberalism, and school reform. Urban Education, 48, 232-256.
32.
KluteM.CherasaroT.ApthorpH. (2016). Summary of research on the association between state interventions in chronically low-performing schools and student achievement. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences.
33.
KowalJ. M.ArkinM. D. (2005). Contracting with external education management providers. Austin, TX: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.
34.
Le FlochK. C.O’DayJ.BirmanB.HurlburtS.NayfackM.HalloranC.. . . WeiT. 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.
35.
LiCalsiC.CitkowiczM.FriedmanL. B.BrownM. (2015). Evaluation of Massachusetts district and school turnaround assistance: Impact of school redesign grants (SRG). Washington, DC; American Institutes for Research.
36.
LubienskiC.ScottJ.DeBrayE. (2011, July22). The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advocacy, and educational policy (ID Number: 16487). Teachers College Record. Available from http://www.tcrecord.org
37.
LusiS. F. (1997). The role of state departments of education in complex school reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
MalenB.CroningerR.MunceyD.JonesD. (2002). Reconstituting schools: “Testing” the “theory of action.”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 113-132.
40.
MannaP. (2010). Collision course: Federal education policy meets state and local realities. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
41.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2015). Frequently asked questions: Level 5 schools. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/hnwpgph
42.
MassellD. (1998a). State strategies for building capacity in education: Progress and continuing challenges. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
43.
MassellD. (1998b). State strategies for building local capacity: Addressing the needs of standards-based reform. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
44.
McGuireK.DunnK.ShawK.SchottA. (2016, January). A failing grade for K-12 state takeovers. Education Week. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/gumprfe
45.
McMurrerJ.DietzS.RentnerD. S. (2011, February23). Early state implementation of Title I school improvement grants under the Recovery Act. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
46.
MinniciA.HillD. D. (2007). Educational architects: Do state education agencies have the tools necessary to implement NCLB?Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
47.
Mississippi Department of Education. (2011, August). School improvement grant (SIG) 1003(g) monitoring plan. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/znmftxg
48.
Montana Office of Public Instruction. (2013). Montana schools of promise: The story of Montana’s school improvement grant (SIG) model. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/hff3gky
49.
MurphyP.HillP. (2011). The changing role of states in education: The move from compliance to performance management (PIE Network Summit Policy Brief). Minneapolis, MN: PIE Network. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/jpodm79
50.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey (2013-14, Version 1a: Local Education Agency Universe Survey, 2013–14, Version 1a: State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education). Washington, DC: Common Core of Data.
51.
Nebraska Department of Education. (2015). NDE federal programs page for Title 1-A school improvement. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/gsamsg3
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
55.
PeckC.ReitzugU. C. (2014). School turnaround fever: The paradoxes of a historical practice promoted as a new reform. Urban Education, 49, 8-38.
56.
PriorL. (2008). Document analysis. In GivenL. (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 230-232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57.
ReddingS.DunnL.McCauleyC. (2015). School improvement grants: Guidance and tools for the 2015 amended regulations: Maximizing the optional planning/pre-implementation year. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
58.
RowanB. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 283-314.
59.
RussellJ. L.MeredithJ.ChildsJ.SteinM. K.PrineD. W. (2015). Designing inter-organizational networks to implement education reform: An analysis of state race to the top applications. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 92-112.
60.
ScottJ.LubienskiC.DeBrayE.JabbarH. (2014). The intermediary function in evidence production, promotion, and utilization: The case of educational incentives. In FinniganK. S.DalyA. J. (Eds.), Using research evidence in education (pp. 69-89). New York, NY: Springer.
61.
SmarickA. (2010, Winter). The turnaround fallacy. Education Next, 10(1), 20-26.
62.
Southeast Comprehensive Center. (2015). Descriptions of state-developed alternative intervention models for school improvement grants in Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, and Texas. Cayce, SC: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
63.
StraussA. L.CorbinJ. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
64.
StuitD. A. (2010). Are bad schools immortal? The scarcity of turnarounds and shutdowns in both charter and district sectors. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
65.
TannenbaumC.BoyleA.GraczewskiC.James-BurdumyS.DragosetL.HallgrenK. (2015). State capacity to support school turnaround (NCEE 2015-412). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
TroppeP.MilanowskiA.Garrison-MogrenR.WebberA.GutmannB.ReisnerE.. . . BachmanM. (2015). State, district, and school implementation of reforms promoted under the recovery act: 2009–10 through 2011–12. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
68.
TrujilloT. (2014). The modern cult of efficiency: Intermediary organizations and the new scientific management. Educational Policy, 28, 207-232.
69.
TrujilloT. (2015). Review of dramatic action, dramatic improvement: The research on school turnaround. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
70.
TrujilloT.RenéeM. (2015). Irrational exuberance for market-based reform: How federal turnaround policies thwart democratic schooling. Teachers College Record, 117, 1-34.
71.
TrujilloT.WoulfinS. (2014). Equity-oriented reform amid standards-based accountability: A qualitative comparative analysis of an intermediary’s instructional practices. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 253-293.
72.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). Educational attainment in the United States: 2014—Detailed tables. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/ogy5p3n
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2012). School Improvement Grants: Education should take additional steps to enhance accountability for schools and contractors: A GAO study (GAO-12-373). Washington, DC: Author.
