In recent years, the federal government has invested billions of dollars to reform chronically low-performing schools. To fulfill their federal Race to the Top grant agreement, Tennessee implemented three turnaround strategies that adhered to the federal restart and transformation models: (a) placed schools under the auspices of the Achievement School District (ASD), which directly managed them; (b) placed schools under the ASD, which arranged for management by a charter management organization; and (c) placed schools under the management of a district Innovation Zone (iZone) with additional resources and autonomy. We examine the effects of each strategy and find that iZone schools, which were separately managed by three districts, substantially improved student achievement. In schools under the auspices of the ASD, student achievement did not improve or worsen. This suggests that it is possible to improve schools without removing them from the governance of a school district.
AbdulkadirogluA.AngristJ.CohodesS.DynarskiS.FullertonJ.KaneT.. . . PathakP. (2009). Informing the debate: Comparing Boston’s charter, pilot and traditional schools. Boston, MA: The Boston Foundation.
BerendsM.BodillyS.KirbyS. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole-school reform: New American schools after a decade (MR-1498-EDU, 2002). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1498/
4.
BifulcoR. (2012). Can nonexperimental estimates replicate estimates based on random assignment in evaluations of school choice? A within-study comparison. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31, 729–751.
5.
BifulcoR.DuncombeW.YingerJ. (2005). Does whole-school reform boost student performance? The case of New York City. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 147–172.
BormanG.SlavinR. E.CheungA.ChamberlainA.MaddenN. A.ChambersB. (2007). Final reading outcomes of the national randomized field trial of Success for All. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 701–731.
8.
BormanG. D.HewesG. M.OvermanL. T.BrownS. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125–230.
9.
BrummetQ. (2014). The effect of school closings on student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 199, 108–124.
10.
CalkinsA.GuentherW.BelfioreG.LashD. (2007). The turnaround challenge: Why America’s best opportunity to dramatically improve student achievement lies in our worst-performing schools. Mass Insight Education (NJ1). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED538298.pdf
11.
CarlsonD.LavertuS. (2016). Charter school closure and student achievement: Evidence from Ohio. Journal of Urban Economics, 95, 31–48.
12.
ChubbJ. E.MoeT. M. (1990). Politics, markets and America’s schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
13.
CullenJ. B.JacobB. A.LevittS. (2006). The effect of school choice on participants: Evidence from randomized lotteries. Econometrica, 74, 1191–1230.
14.
DeeT. (2012, April). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus (NBER Working Paper No. 17990). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17990.pdf
15.
DeeT.WyckoffJ. (2013, October). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT (NBER Working Paper No. 19529). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19529
16.
de la TorreM.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.
17.
DesimoneL.PayneB.FederoviciousN.HenrichC.Finn-StevensonM. (2004). Comprehensive school reform: An implementation study of preschool programs in elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 387–407.
18.
DoughertyS. M.WeinerJ. (2015, May). The Rhode to turnaround? The impact of waivers to No Child Left Behind on school performance. Presented at the Association of Public Policy and Management, Miami, FL.
19.
EngbergJ.EppleD.ImbrognoJ.SiegH.ZimmerR. (2014). Identification and estimating of treatment effects when program participation is partially determined by lotteries: The case of magnet programs. Journal of Labor Economics, 32, 27–63.
20.
EngbergJ.GillB.ZamarroG.ZimmerR. (2012). Closing schools in a Shrinking district: Do student outcomes depend on which schools are closed?Journal of Urban Economics, 71, 189–203.
GillB.ZimmerR.ChristmanJ. B.BlancS. (2007). State takeover, school restructuring, private management, and student achievement in Philadelphia. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
GrossB.BookerK. T.GoldhaberD. (2009). Boosting student achievement: The effect of comprehensive school reform on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 111–126.
HeisselJ.LaddH. (2016). School turnaround in North Carolina: A regression discontinuity analysis (National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data Working Paper, 156). Retrieved from http://www.caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/WP%20156.pdf
27.
HenryG. T.BastianK. C.SmithA. A. (2012). Scholarships to recruit the “best and brightest” into teaching: Who is recruited, where do they teach, how effective are they, and how long do they stay?Educational Researcher, 41(3), 83–92.
28.
HenryG. T.GuthrieJ. E. (2016). The effects of school turnaround in North Carolina. Denver, CO: Association for Education Finance and Policy Spring Conference Paper.
29.
HermanR.DawsonP.DeeT.GreeneJ.MaynardR.ReddingS.. . . DarwinM. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools: A practice guide (NCEE 20084020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
MacIverM. A.MacIverD. J. (2006). Which bets paid off? Early findings on the impact of private management and K-8 conversion reforms on the achievement of Philadelphia students. Review of Policy Research, 23, 1077–1079.
33.
MalloyC.WohlstetterP. (2003). Working conditions in charter schools: What’s the appeal for teachers?Education and Urban Society, 35, 219–241.
Nichols-BarrerI.GillB.GleasonP.TuttleC. (2012). Student selection, attrition, and replacement in KIPP middle schools. Mathematica Policy Research. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519661.pdf
36.
PapayJ. (2015). The effects of school turnaround strategies in Massachusetts. Presented at the Association of Public Policy and Management, Miami, FL.
37.
PerlmanC. L.ReddingS. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook on effective implementation of school improvement grants. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/survey
38.
PetersonP.ChingosM. (2007). Impact of for-profit and non-profit management on student achievement: The Philadelphia experiment. Program on Education Policy and Governance, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Retrieved from http://inpathways.net/PEPG07-07_Peterson_Chingos_Philadelphia.pdf
39.
PeurachD. J.NeumerskiC. M. (2015). Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround. Journal of Educational Change, 16, 379–420.
SchuelerB. E.GoodmanJ.DemingD. J. (2016). Can states take over and turn around school districts? Evidence from Lawrence, Massachusetts (No. w21895). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
44.
StrunkK. O.MarshJ. A.HashimA. K.Bush-MecenasS. (2016). Innovation and a return to the status quo: A mixed-methods study of school reconstitution. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 549–577.
TanenbaumC.BoyleA.GraczewskiC.James-BurdumyS.DragosetL.HallgrenK. (2015). State capacity to support school turnaround. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154012/pdf/20154012.pdf
47.
Taylor EricS.Tyler JohnH. (2012). The effect of evaluation on teacher performance. The American Economic Review, 102, 3628–3651.
48.
TorresA. C. (2016). How principals influence relational trust and teacher turnover in no excuses charter schools. Journal of School Leadership, 26, 61–91.
49.
TorresA. C. (2016). Is this work sustainable? Teacher turnover and perceptions of workload in charter management organizations. Urban Education, 51, 891–914.
50.
TorresA. C.OluwoleJ. (2015). Teacher satisfaction and turnover in charter schools: Examining the variations and possibilities for collective bargaining in state laws. Journal of School Choice, 9, 503–528.
51.
U.S. Department of 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: Author.
52.
WintersM. A. (2015). Understanding the gap in special education enrollments between charter and traditional public schools: Evidence from Denver, Colorado. Educational Researcher, 44, 228–236.
53.
ZimmerR.EngbergJ. (2016). Can broad inferences be drawn from lottery analyses of school choice programs? An exploration of appropriate sensitivity analyses. Journal of School Choice, 10, 48–72.
54.
ZimmerR.GillB.BookerK.LavertuS.WitteJ. (2011). Do charter schools “cream skim” students and increase racial-ethnic segregation? In BerendsM.CannataM.GoldringE. (Eds.), School choice and school improvement (pp. 215–232). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
55.
ZimmerR.GuarinoC. (2013). Is there empirical evidence that charter schools “push out” low-performing students?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 461–480.
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.
