High-stakes testing and accountability implicate failing schools more frequently and more precisely than ever before. Consequently efforts to turn around these schools have become paramount for educators, policy actors, and community members. Through a synthesis of research on failing schools, this article unpacks the constructs of school failure and turnaround. It also details causes of decline and crisis. Finally, it analyzes current educational strategies intended to turn failing schools into successful ones.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdcockE. P., & WinklerL. (1999, April). Jump higher or else! Measuring school reconstitution. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
2.
American Federation of Teachers. (1999). Redesigning low-performing schools: It's union work.Washington, DC: Author.
3.
ArcherJ. (2006). Proposed grants for improvement highlight key new role for states. Education Week, 25(24), 1, 40.
4.
ArgentiJ. (1976). Corporate collapse: The causes and symptoms.London: McGraw-Hill.
5.
ArmenakisA. A., & FredenbergerW. B. (1998). Diagnostic practices of turnaround change agents. In FosterL. W., & KetchenD. (Eds.), Turnaround research: Past accomplishments and future challenges (pp. 39–55). London: JAI Press.
6.
ArsenD., BellC., & PlankD. N. (2003). Who will turn around “failing” schools? A framework for institutional choice (Working Paper No. 12). East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Education.
7.
BibeaultD. B. (1982). Corporate turnaround: How managers turn dozers into winners.New York: McGraw-Hill.
8.
BormanG. D., RachubaL., DatnowA., AlbergM., Mac IverM., StringfieldS. (2000). Four models of school improvement: Successes and challenges in reforming low-performing, high-poverty Title I schools (Report No. 48). Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
9.
BouldingK. F. (1975, June). The management of decline. Change, 7(5), 7–8, 64.
10.
BowlesS. A., ChurchillA. M., EffratA., & McDermottK. A. (2002). School and district intervention: A decision-making framework for policymakers.Amherst, MA: Center for Education Policy.
11.
BradyR. C. (2003). Can failing schools be fixed?Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
CibulkaJ. G. (2003). Educational bankruptcy, takeovers, and reconstitution of failing schools. In BoydW. L., & MiretzkyD. (Eds.), American educational governance on trial: Change and challenges (pp. 249–270). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
14.
CoralloC., & McDonaldD. (2001). What works with low-performing schools: A review of research literature on low-performing schools.Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory.
15.
DavisM. R. (2006). Report: Schools could improve on NCLB tutoring, choice. Education Week, 25(31), 31.
16.
DonlevyJ. (2003). No Child Left Behind: Failing schools and future directions. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(4), 335–338.
17.
DuffyM. C. (2001, April). America's reform inferno: The nine layers of accountability. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
18.
EdigerM. (2004). What makes for failing schools?Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(2), 170–175.
19.
FordJ. D. (1983). The management of organizational crises. Business Horizons, 24(3), 10–16.
20.
ForsterE. M. (1996, April). State intervention in local schools districts: Educational solution or political process? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
21.
GarciaS. B., & GuerraP. L. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban Society, 36(2), 150–168.
22.
GoldsteinA. S. (1988). Corporate comeback: Managing turnaround and troubled companies.New York: John Wiley.
23.
GoldsteinJ., KelemenM., & KoskiW. (1998, April). Reconstitution in theory and practice: The experiences of San Francisco. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
24.
GreenR. L., & CarlB. R. (2000, May). A reform for troubled times: Takeovers of urban schools. Annals of the American Academy, 569(1), 56–70.
25.
HartB., & RisleyT. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
26.
HasselB. C., & SteinerL. (2003). Starting fresh: A new strategy for responding to chronically low performing schools.Chapel Hill, NC: Public Impact.
27.
HessF. M., & FinnC. E.Jr. (2004). Inflating the life rafts of NCLB: Making public school choice and supplemental services work for students in troubled schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 34–58.
28.
HessG. A. (2003). Reconstitution—Three years later: Monitoring the effect of sanctions on Chicago high schools. Education and Urban Society, 35(3), 300–327.
29.
HousmanN. G., & MartinezM. R. (2001). A brief for practitioners on turning around low-performing schools: Implications at the school, district, and state levels.Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive Reform.
30.
KirstM. W. (2002). Mayoral influence, new regimes, and public school governance (Report No. RR-049). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
31.
KowalJ. M., & HasselE. A. (2005). Turnarounds with new leaders and staff.Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates / North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
32.
LashwayL. (2004). The mandate: To help low-performing schools. Teacher Librarian, 31(5), 25–27.
33.
LenzL. (2002). Been there, done that, Mr. President. Journal of Staff Development, 23(4), 84.
34.
LinnD., RothmanB., & WhiteK. (2001). State strategies for turning around low-performing schools.Washington, DC: National Governors Association for Best Practices.
35.
LipskyD. K., & GartnerA. (1989). Overcoming school failure: A vision for the future. Academy of Political Science, 37(2), 149–158.
36.
Mac IverD. J., RubyA., BalfanzR., & ByrnesV. (2003). Removed from the list: A comparative longitudinal case study of a reconstitution-eligible school. Journal of Curriculum, and Supervision, 18(3), 259–289.
37.
MalenB., CroningerR., MunceyD., & Redmond-JonesD. (2002). Reconstituting schools: “Testing” the “theory of action.”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 113–132.
38.
MalenB., CroningerR., RedmondD., & MunceyD. (1999, October). Uncovering the potential contradictions in reconstitution reforms: A working paper. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Minneapolis, MN.
39.
MalenB., & RiceJ. K. (2004). A framework for assessing the impact of education reforms on school capacity: Insights from studies of high-stakes accountability initiatives. Educational Policy, 18(5), 631–660.
40.
MazzeoC., & BermanI. (2003). Reaching new heights: Turning around low-performing schools.Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices.
41.
McColskeyW., & MonradD. M. (2004). Assisting low-performing schools in the Southeast. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, and Practice, 4(4), 3–24.
42.
McRobbieJ. (1998). Can state intervention spur academic turnaround?San Francisco: WestEd.
43.
MintropH. (2003). The limits of sanctions in low-performing schools: A study of Maryland and Kentucky schools on probation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(3). Retrieved September 8, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n3.html
44.
MintropH., & MacLellanA. (2002). School improvement plans in elementary and middle schools on probation. Elementary School Journal, 102(4), 275–300.
45.
MintropH., MacLellanA., & QuinteroM. F. (2001). School improvement plans in schools on probation: A comparative content analysis across three accountability systems. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 197–218.
46.
MintropH., & TrujilloT. (2005). Corrective action in low performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(48), 1–30.
47.
MurphyJ., & MeyersC. V. (2007). Turning around failing schools: Leadership lessons from the organizational sciences.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
48.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
49.
Neuman-SheldonB. (2006). Building on state reform: Maryland school restructuring.Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
50.
NicolaidouM., & AinscowM. (2005). Understanding failing schools: Perspectives from the inside. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(3), 229–248.
PearceJ. A., & RobbinsK. (1993). Toward improved theory and research on business turnaround. Journal of Management, 19(3), 613–636.
53.
PetersonK. D. (1999). Reconstitution and school reform: Issues and lessons. Newsletter of the Comprehensive Center Region—Region VI, 4(2), 21–22.
54.
PetersonP. E. (2005). Making up the rules as you play the game. Education Next, 5(4), 42–48.
55.
PhenixD., SiegelD., ZaltsmanA., & FruchterN. (2005). A forced march for failing schools: Lessons from the New York City chancellor's district. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(40), 1–27.
56.
PicucciA. C., BrownsonA., KahlertR., & SobelA. (2002). Driven to succeed: High-performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle schools: Volume 1. Cross-case analysis of high-performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle schools.Austin: University of Texas, Charles A. Dana Center.
57.
RiceJ. K., & MalenB. (2003). The human costs of education reform: The case of school reconstitution. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(5), 635–366.
58.
RudoZ. (2001). Corrective action in low-performing schools and school districts.Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved November 12, 2005, from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/catalog/items/pol91.html
59.
SnowC. E., BarnesW. S., ChandlerJ., GoodmanI. F., & HemphillL. (1991). Unfulfilled expectations: Home and school influences on literacy.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60.
SprengC. P. (2005). Policy options for interventions in failing schools (Doctoral dissertation, Pardee RAND Graduate School). Santa Monica, CARAND.
61.
SteinerL. M. (2005). State takeovers of individual schools.Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates / North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
62.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). School improvement report: Executive order on actions for turning around low-performing schools.Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
63.
WangM. C., & ManningJ. (2000). Turning around low-performing schools: The case of the Washington, DC schools (Report No. 143). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
WongK. K., & ShenF. X. (2003). Measuring the effectiveness of city and state takeover as a school reform strategy. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 89–119.
68.
ZiebarthT. (2004). State takeovers and reconstitutions.Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
69.
ZuckermanD. (2002). Comprehensive school reform and district- and school-based improvement (No. 710). Philadelphia: Temple University Laboratory for Student Success.
