A growing body of research evaluates the effects of turnaround on chronically low-performing schools. We extend this literature by formally testing factors that may either mediate or suppress the effects of two turnaround initiatives in Tennessee: the Achievement School District (ASD) and local Innovation Zones (iZones). Using difference-in-differences models within a mediational framework, we find that hiring effective teachers and principals partially explains positive iZone effects. In the ASD, high levels of teacher turnover suppress potential positive effects. Also, in iZone schools, increased levels of student mobility and chronic absenteeism suppress potentially larger positive effects. Policies that increase capacity within turnaround schools, such as financial incentives for effective staff, appear to be important ingredients for realizing positive effects from turnaround reforms.
AladjemD. K.BirmanB. F.OrlandM.Harr-RobinsJ.HerediaA.ParrishT. B.RuffiniS. J. (2010). Achieving dramatic school improvement: An exploratory study. A cross-site analysis from the evaluation of comprehensive school reform program implementation and outcomes study. Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, U.S. Department of Education. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED526783
2.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
BoydD.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2005). Explaining the short careers of high-achieving teachers in schools with low-performing students. The American Economic Review, 95(2), 166–171.
6.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.EastonJ. Q.LuppescuS. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
7.
CarlsonD.LavertuS. (2018). School improvement grants in Ohio: Effects on student achievement and school administration. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718760218
8.
ChiangH. (2009). How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 93(9), 1045–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.06.002
9.
DeeT. (2012). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus. National Bureau of Economic Research.
10.
DeeT.Dizon-RossE. (2019). School performance, accountability, and waiver reforms: Evidence from Louisiana. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(3), 316–349.
de la TorreM.AllensworthE.JagesicS.SebastianJ.SalmonowiczM.MeyersC.GerdemanR. D. (2013). Turning around low-performing schools in Chicago. Education Resources Information Center.
13.
Dickey-GriffithD. (2013). A preliminary analysis of the effects of the school improvement grant program on student achievement in Texas [Doctoral thesis]. Georgetown University.
14.
DoughertyS. M.WeinerJ. M. (2017). The Rhode to turnaround: The impact of waivers to no child left behind on school performance. Educational Policy, 33, 555–586.
DragosetL.ThomasJ.HerrmannM.DekeJ.James-BurdumyS.GraczewskiC.BoyleA.UptonR.TanenbaumC.GiffinJ. (2017). School improvement grants: Implementation and effectiveness (NCEE 2017-4013). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
17.
EgbertR. L. (1981). Some thoughts about follow through thirteen years later (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED244733). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED244733
18.
GillB.ZimmerR.ChristmanJ.BlancS. (2007). State takeover, school restructuring, private management, and student achievement in Philadelphia. RAND Corporation.
19.
GlazerJ. L.EganC. (2018). The ties that bind: Building civic capacity for the Tennessee Achievement School District. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 55(5), 928–964. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218763088
20.
Goodman-BaconA. (2018). Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing [NBER working paper]. National Bureau of Economic Research.
21.
GottfriedM. A. (2010). Evaluating the relationship between student attendance and achievement in urban elementary and middle schools: An instrumental variables approach. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 434–465.
GrissomJ. A. (2011). Can good principals keep teachers in disadvantaged schools? Linking principal effectiveness to teacher satisfaction and turnover in hard-to-staff environments. Teachers College Record, 113(11), 2552–2585.
24.
GrossB.BookerT. K.GoldhaberD. (2009). Boosting student achievement: The effect of comprehensive school reform on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(2), 111–126.
25.
GuarinoC. M.SantibanezL.DaleyG. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 173–208.
26.
HamiltonM. P.HeiligJ. V.PazeyB. L. (2014). A nostrum of school reform? Turning around reconstituted urban Texas high schools. Urban Education, 49(2), 182–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913475636
27.
HarrisD. N.LarsenM. F. (2016). The effects of the New Orleans post-Katrina school reforms on student academic outcomes [Technical report]. Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.
28.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
29.
HayesA. F.ScharkowM. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter?Psychological Science, 24(10), 1918–1927.
30.
HeisselJ. A.LaddH. F. (2017). School turnaround in North Carolina: A regression discontinuity analysis. Economics of Education Review, 62, 302–320.
31.
HenryG. T.BastianK. C.FortnerC. K. (2011). Stayers and leavers early-career teacher effectiveness and attrition. Educational Researcher, 40(6), 271–280.
32.
HenryG. T.GuthrieJ. E.TownsendL. W. (2015). Outcomes and impacts of North Carolina’s initiative to turn around the lowest-achieving schools. The Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, North Carolina State University.
33.
HenryG. T.HarbatkinE. (2018, November). The next generation of school reform: Improving the lowest performing schools without disrupting the status quo [Paper presentation]. Annual Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC, United States.
HermanR.DawsonP.DeeT.GreeneJ.MaynardR.ReddingS.DarwinM. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools. IES practice guide. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED501241
36.
HessG. A. (2003). Reconstitution—Three years later: Monitoring the effect of sanctions on Chicago high schools. Education and Urban Society, 35(3), 300–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124503035003004
37.
ImaiK.KeeleL.TingleyD. (2010). A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 15(4), 309–334.
38.
Le FlochK.O’DayJ.BirmanB.HurlburtS.NayfackM.HalloranC.BoyleA.BrownS.Mercard-GarciaD.RosenbergL.HulseyL.WeiT. (2016). Case studies of schools receiving school improvement grants: Final report [Indexes; Offices]. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20164002/index.asp
39.
LeithwoodK.StraussT. (2008). Turnaround schools and the leadership they require. Canadian Education Association.
40.
MacKinnonD. (2012). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Routledge.
41.
MalenB.CroningerR.MunceyD.Redmond-JonesD. (2002). Reconstituting schools: “Testing” the “theory of action.”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 113–132.
42.
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.
43.
PapayJ.HannonM. (2018, November). The effects of school turnaround strategies in Massachusetts. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC, United States.
44.
ParkeC.KanyongoG. (2012). Student attendance, mobility, and mathematics achievement in an urban school district. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(3), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.547231
PreacherK. J. (2015). Advances in mediation analysis: A survey and synthesis of new developments. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 825–852.
47.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.
48.
PreacherK. J.KelleyK. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 93–115.
49.
ReddingC.HenryG. T. (2018). New evidence on the frequency of teacher turnover: Accounting for within-year turnover. Educational Researcher, 47(9), 577–593.
50.
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(2), 73–103.
51.
RiceJ. K.MalenB. (2003). The human costs of education reform: The case of school reconstitution. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(5), 635–666.
RonfeldtM.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4–36.
55.
SchuelerB. E.GoodmanJ. S.DemingD. J. (2017). Can states take over and turn around school districts? Evidence from Lawrence, Massachusetts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(2), 311–332.
56.
ShroutP. E.BolgerN. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.
57.
StrunkK. O.MarshJ. A.HashimA. K.Bush-MecenasS. (2016). Innovation and a return to the status quo: A mixed-methods study of school reconstitution. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(3), 549–577.
58.
StrunkK. O.MarshJ. A.HashimA. K.Bush-MecenasS.WeinsteinT. (2016). The impact of turnaround reform on student outcomes: Evidence and insights from the Los Angeles Unified School District. Education Finance and Policy, 11(3), 251–282.
59.
SunM.PennerE. K.LoebS. (2017). Resource- and approach-driven multidimensional change: Three-year effects of school improvement grants. American Educational Research Journal, 54(4), 607–643. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217695790
ZimmerR.HenryG. T.KhoA. (2017). The effects of school turnaround in Tennessee’s Achievement School District and Innovation Zones. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(4), 670–696.
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.
