School reconstitution, a turnaround strategy that prescribes massive staffing turnover, is expected to result in more committed and capable school staff and innovative practices. However, little evidence supports this assumption. We use quasi-experimental designs to assess the impact of reconstitution on student achievement and teacher mobility, finding that reconstitution affected teacher mobility and improved student achievement in the first year of the reform, with continued but smaller impacts in the out years. We draw on mutual learning theory to conduct an exploratory analysis of reform implementation. We find that initial re-staffing and strategic planning may have promoted balance between exploring new and exploiting existing knowledge. Over time, however, balanced, mutual learning was not sustained.
AaronsonD.BarrowL.SanderW. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25, 95–135.
2.
ArchibaldS.OddenA. (2000). A case study of resource reallocation to implement a whole school reform model and boost student achievement: Parnell Elementary School. Retrieved from http://cpre.wceruw.org/papers/parnell%20sf%203-00.pdf
3.
BennerM. J.TushmanM. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 676–707.
4.
BloomH. S. (1999). Estimating program impacts on student achievement using short interrupted time series. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
5.
BlumerH. (1954). What is wrong with social theory?American Sociological Review, 18, 3–10.
6.
BowenG. (2008). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 12–23.
7.
Center on Education Policy. (2012). Opportunities and obstacles: Implementing stimulus-funded School Improvement Grants in Maryland, Michigan, and Idaho. Washington, DC: Author.
8.
CharmazK. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Strategies for qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 249–291). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
9.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ. N.RockoffJ. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. The American Economic Review, 104, 2633–2679.
10.
CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher professional community in policy implementation. In HonigM. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 25–46). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
11.
DeeT. (2012, April). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus (Working Paper No. 17990). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17990
12.
delaTorreM.AllensworthE.JagesicS.SebastianJ.SalmonowiczM.MeyersC.GerdemanR. D. (2013). Turning around low-performing schools in Chicago. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago’s Consortium on Chicago School Research.
13.
DonaldS. G.LangK. (2007). Inference with difference-in-differences and other panel data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89, 221–233.
14.
DufloE. (2001). Schooling and labor market consequences of school construction in Indonesia: Evidence from an unusual policy experiment. The American Economic Review, 91, 795–813.
15.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Transaction.
16.
GuinK. (2004). Chronic teacher turnover in urban elementary schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(42). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/197
17.
HamiltonM. P.HeiligJ. V.PazyB. L. (2014). A nostrum of school reform? Turning around reconstituted urban Texas high schools. Urban Education, 49, 182–215.
18.
HansenJ. B.KraetzerA. V.MukherjeeP. (1998, August). Adams-Hunt achievement initiative final evaluation report (Rep. prepared for the Colorado Springs School District 11, Colorado Springs, CO).Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
19.
HermanR.DawsonP.DeeT.GreeneJ.MaynardR.ReddingS.DarwinM. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools: IES practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
20.
HessG. A. (2003). Reconstitution—Three years later monitoring the effect of sanctions on Chicago high schools. Education and Urban Society, 35, 300–327.
21.
KnudsonJ.ShamburghL.O’DayJ. A. (2011). Beyond the school: Exploring a systematic approach to school turnaround. San Mateo: California Collaborative on District Reform.
22.
LavieD.RosenkopfL. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 797–818.
23.
LeFlochK. C.BirmanB.O’DayJ.HurlburtS.Mercado-GarciaD.GoffR.. . . WeiT. E. (2014). Case studies of schools receiving School Improvement Grants: Findings after the first year of implementation. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences.
24.
LeithwoodK.SeashoreL. K.AndersonS.WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
25.
LevinthalD. A.MarchJ. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(Suppl. 2), 95–112.
MalenB.CroningerR.MunceyD.Redmond-JonesD. (2002). Reconstituting schools: “Testing” the “theory of action.”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 113–132.
28.
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, 631–660.
29.
MalenB.RiceJ. K. (in press). School reconstitution as a turnaround strategy: An analysis of the evidence. In MathisJ.TrujilloT. (Eds.), Test-based education reforms: Lessons from a failed agenda. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
30.
MarchJ. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.
31.
MarchJ. G. (1994). Primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
32.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
NovakJ. R.FullerB. (2003). Penalizing diverse schools? Similar test scores, but different students, bring federal sanctions (Policy Brief 03-4). Berkley, CA: Policy Analysis of California Education.
35.
NyeB.KonstantopoulosS.HedgesL. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237–257.
PandeyS.SharmaR. R. K. (2009). Organizational factors for exploration and exploitation. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 4, 48–58.
38.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Designing qualitative studies. In Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Vol. 3, pp. 230–246). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
39.
RiceJ. K.CroningerR. G. (2005). Resource generation, reallocation, or depletion: An analysis of the impact of reconstitution on school capacity. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 73–103.
40.
RiceJ. K.MalenB. (2003). The human costs of education reform: The case of school reconstitution. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 635–666.
41.
RiceJ. K.MalenB. (2010). School reconstitution as an education reform strategy: A synopsis of the evidence. Atlanta, GA: National Education Association.
42.
RivkinJ. W.SiggelkowN. (2003). Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Science, 49, 290–311.
43.
RivkinS. G.HanushekE. A.KainJ. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417–458.
44.
RockoffJ. E. (2004). The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from panel data. The American Economic Review, 94, 247–252.
45.
RojasW. (1996). Reconstitution, reculturing, and reform: Adding options for urban education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.
46.
RonfeldtM.LoebS.WyckoffJ. H. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 4–36.
47.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
48.
SpillaneJ. P.HalversonR.DiamondJ. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.
49.
StraussA.CorbinJ. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
50.
StrunkK. O.MarshJ. A.HashimA. K.Mecenas-BushS. C.WeinsteinT. L. (in press). The impact of turnaround reform on student outcomes: Evidence and insights from the Los Angeles Unified School District. Education Finance Policy.
51.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2010). Guidance on fiscal year 2010 School Improvement Grants under section 1003(G) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
52.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2012). School Improvement Grants: Education should take additional steps to enhance accountability for schools and contractors. Washington, DC: Author.
53.
VeraD.CrossanM. (2004). Strategic learning and organizational learning. The Academy of Management Review, 29, 222–240.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
